the being that wrestled with Yaakov Avinu {Jacob}was God himself

 You can see in Book of Hoshea 12 verse 3 that the being that wrestled with Yaakov Avinu {Jacob}was God himself. [That incident is recounted in Genesis 32]. This leaves room for some questions. Could not God have won? Why did He find it so hard to wrestle with Yaakov who after all was only a man? And when the morning came God said "Let me go because the morning has come." ("I have got things to do?" Or maybe He has to work in the dark where his actions are hidden?). And He could not leave until Yaakov let Him go? You would imagine that God could leave any time he wanted--even if Yaakov did not let Him go. 

And you can see that that being was God in the verses themselves where Yakov calls the place "pnuel" [the Face of God]. for I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved. [There is a danger in seeing the Face of God as the verse says "no man can see me and live."

What I am getting at is the idea of of the Kant -Fries School of thought that there is some area beyond what is accessible to human or even pure reason. That is the "dinge an sich." That is, there are two kinds of knowledge: (a) what can be checked--empirical and (b) what can not--a priori.  Also two kinds of fact. Synthetic and Analytic. Analytic proven true by definition, and synthetic true but does not have to be true by definition. So what about Synthetic a priori like a figure can be formed by  less than three lines. You can not make a figure with two lines. So how can u know if synthetic a priori is true? to Kant that is by structures in the mind. To Fries that is by immediate non intuitive. Hegel disagreed that this could be a true source of knowledge, but to me this makes sense--that Reason has limits.

This area of reasoning about God is one of those areas that is beyond reason--but still possible to know. See Kelley Ross's web site on the Kant Fries approach.

argument between Rav Shach and the Chazon Ish-

 Witnesses on a doc is an argument between Rav Shach and the Chazon Ish--if they are considered to have made their testimony before or after the plea.

I mean to say that Rav Shach is trying to prove that  the obligation of an oath in the case of a woman says to her ex husband that he owes 100 zuzim. He says he paid fifty.--that case he is obligated an oath. Rav Shach says this is a case here there is no document [Ketubah], for if there was, he would not be required an oath since the admission in half happened in such a way that he could not deny and also  there would be witnesses on the doc their testimony would be considered as coming before the claims. Thus also he would be not obligated in taking an oath. The Chazon Ish holds in this last case witnesses are thought to be coming after the plea so it is like admission in  half and he would be obligated to take an oath.

On the way back from the sea I was thinking about this and it seems to me clear. The Chazon Ish is thinking about  witnesses. If you have two witnesses that come to court and say he is obligated in half the sum that is demanded he is required to take an oath.--even if they say that they already testified to this ion a previous occasion. And that is true. But Rav Shach's point is witnesses on the document  is not the same thing.  They only signed it once and that was before the plaintiff came to make his plea.

Thus the only case that the law in the Rambam in laws of marriage  16 is possible is in a place where it is not the custom to write a ketubah.

 

Mediterranean Sea is called the "ים הגדול." That was the common name for it. For example the name the Italian people gave to it was "Mare Magnum"

 I was at the sea again and it occurred to me that the Mediterranean Sea is called the "ים הגדול." That was the common name for it. For example the name the Italian people gave to it was "Mare Magnum". The great sea. [That was before it became a Roman lake at which time the Romans began to refer to it as "Mare Nostrum"--"Our Sea". At any rate you see the common usage was to refer to it as the "great sea". So there is no doubt in my mind that the blessing "who made the great sea" refers to the Mediterranean.

{But I think it can also refer to the Atlantic which is the source of the Mediterranean which was just a dry desert until the Atlantic made an opening through the area of the Rock of Gibraltar.

Not to add extra restrictions. What people try to pass off as the Law, is almost always their own additions or even perversions.

 In the LeM of Rav Nachman vol. II perek 44 is a lesson about not to add extra restrictions. חומרות יתירות And I used to say that Torah lesson over every day for 40 days. At some point the message got through  and I began to see that a lot of what people try to pass off as the Law, is almost always their own additions or even perversions.    I became skeptical of the religious world. The only part of the religious world that  have respect for is the Litvak yeshiva [based on the Gra]. Litvak yeshivot bear in mind this principle: "Do not add and do not subtract from the Law"

[Though even with this principle, it is not always easy to tell what is the actual law and what is the fraud that the religious try to pull over our eyes.] 

At any rate, you might notice that this message did not get through to me until I read it in the book of Rav Nahman. But however I got the message, I wish to convey this important idea--which is in fact a verse in Deuteronomy, "Do not add and do not subtract from the Law."

Climate change --the worse consequences for mankind

 The so called ""Climate scientists" are all liars. They hide the fact that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is lower than it has ever been. Pluss the highly relevant fact that if there would be any less Carbon Dioxide all plant life would cease to exist. And that would have worse consequences for mankind than a slight warming of the atmosphere.  CO2 is the food of plants. So why is it that all so called "Climate scientists" keep on lying about this? Because of money. If they say a word about this fraud, they lose all their funding.

not to be extra strict.

 There are three places in the writings of Rav Nahman that emphasize not to be extra strict. I realize this looking for extra things to be strict about is a fundamental flaw in my own personality. One is supposed to keep Torah plain and simple --not to add and not to subtract. However I would like to suggest that this is not to say there is nothing one ought to be strict about. Rather it is a matter of getting the priorities straight. Things that the Torah itself is strict, (like not to do idolatry), one ought to be extra strict. Good character also is high on the list of the things the Torah is strict about. As gaining good character trait is one of the reasons for the mitzvot as all the Rishonim that list the mitzvot go into [for example Sefer HaChinuch].

Henry VIII really could marry Catherine because that is the exact case of Yibum.

 Henry VIII really could marry Catherine because that is the exact case of Yibum. Arthur had married Catherine but did not leave any children. So Henry was obligated to marry her.   He did not need the excuse that the marriage had not been consummated. And when he wanted to annul it, he did not understand the verse that marrying one's brother's wife is a an "erva" [prohibition of the sex because of close family relations.]because that verse refers to a case where the brother has had children.

I should add that the sexual acts of Leviticus 18 are not all because of family relations. But all are under the category of "erva". E.g., a nida is an erva. [That is a woman who has seen blood. She is forbidden because of Erva until she dips herself into a natural body of water like a river or sea or spring. All the "arayot" are ae guilty of a " Karet offence, but not all get the death penalty. Nida is an example of that. It is Karet but not a death penalty. A homosexual relation is also an "erva but does get the death penalty.]"