I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the Ran. Rav Shach wants to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the Ran. [Rabbainu Nisim]. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a sacrifice" And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension [you add the words this is forbidden like a sacrifice. And yet "This is forbidden like a sacrifice" is forbidden because it is part of the law of neder which is simply "This is forbidden"

The answer of רב שך to explain the ר''ן would be to separate the law of extension from the main law. But if this can fit in the ר''ן seems doubtful. {Whether this could fit in the ר''ן or even the רמב''ם does not really seem to work.] However I have reached a state of "fallen mind" and am not really able to spend time learning.--though I should because of the command of the Torah.. Still I mull over this difficulty in the Ran and Rav Shach-hoping for some answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am not saying my previous blog entry is a very complete answer for the ר''ן. The answer of  רה שך is to say that there is a way to explain the apparent ] problem in the words of the ר''ן. On one hand that "This is forbidden " is forbidden because of an extension of "this is forbidden like a קרבן". And that does seem impossible because of circular reasoning. "This is forbidden" because of extension. [You add the words "this is forbidden like a קרבן." And yet,"This is forbidden like a קרבן" is forbidden because it is part of the law of נדרים which is simply "This is forbidden"ץ

התשובה של רב שך להסביר את הר''ן תהיה הפרדת חוק ההרחבה מהחוק העיקרי. אבל אם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן נראה מסופק. האם זה יכול להתאים לר''ן או אפילו לרמב''ם לא באמת נראה שזה עובד.

הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי

  "This loaf is forbidden to me" to the ר''ן and רמב''ם is the main נדר vow. So why אם he says, "This loaf is forbidden to me like נבלה," is permitted? Because when one says, "This is forbidden to me like such and such a thing" the "such and such a thing" has to be something that can be forbidden by a נדר or like someone who says, "This loaf is a מתנה for the בית המקדש". [Things presented to the בית המקדש are forbidden in use.] [This is a special law. For you might ask what is the difference  between "This is forbidden to me" and "This is forbidden to me like נבלה"?] [This is not like the other ראשונים that hold the real נדר is when one says "This is forbidden like a קרבן" and the only reason, "This is forbidden to me" works is as a extension [יד]. However the very well known question on the ר''ן at the very beginning of נדרים מסכת is that at first glance he seems to contradict himself. At first going like the רמב''ם and then going like תוספות on the very same page. רב שך says that for the actual law of נדר is without attaching the prohibition to anything else [as the רמב''ם says] but for the language to make clear what he means [as is necessary for נדרים] he has to say 'like a קרבן. This to me seems like a very good answer to show that the ר''ן does not contradict himself. However the remaining question is that the actual language of the ר''ן does not seem to accept this explanation. What I mean is that the ר''ן  says in מסכת שבועות the reason you need "like a קרבן" is because הקדש עושה חליפין if one says this animal is like that קרבן, that is valid.[זה תמורת זה חל  ] The second animal becomes a קרבן also. This me this seems like a contradiction to the idea of רב שך [in the beginning of הלכות נדרים] [However a further point is that if the main נדר is ''This is אסור לי'' then it is hard to see that the very words ''this is אסור לי'' would be thought not to count as a נדרת, and only valid as a short way of saying ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' when ''this is forbidden as a קרבן'' is only forbidden because it is thought of as an extension of the main concept of נדר.]  

The way to answer this is thus: There is a difference between the description of something and the thing itself. The נדר itself is valid not because of  התפסה בדבר הנדור. Rather, the oath is valid in itself. But the language has to mean directly that he is forbidding to himself something that is not forbidden. And he can not do that by saying, "This is forbidden to me "because that might as well mean he is saying something not true. It sounds as if he is saying it is already forbidden"

_______________________________________________________________________________

/"הלחם הזה אסור לי" לר''ן ורמב''ם הוא נדר העיקרי. אז למה אם הוא אומר, "הלחם הזה אסור לי כמו נבלה", מותר? כי כשאומרים, "זה אסור לי כמו דבר כזה", "דבר כזה וכזה" חייב להיות משהו שאפשר לאסור אותו על ידי דיבור או כמו מישהו שאומר, "הלחם הזה הוא מתנה בשביל בית המקדש ". [דברים המוצגים לבית המקדש אסורים בשימוש.] [זהו חוק מיוחד. כי אתה עשוי לשאול מה ההבדל בין "זה אסור לי" לבין "זה אסור לי כמו נבלה"?] [זה לא כמו שאר הראשונים האחרים שמחזיקים את הנדר האמיתי הוא כאשר אומרים "זה אסור כמו קרבן ", והסיבה היחידה," זה אסור לי "פועלת כהרחבה [יד]. אולם השאלה הידועה בר''ן בתחילת נדרים היא שבמבט ראשון נראה שהוא סותר את עצמו. בהתחלה הולך כמו הרמב''ם ואחר כך הולך כמו תוספות על אותו דף. רב שך מתרץ את הר''ן כי החוק בפועל של נדר הוא מבלי לצרף את האיסור לשום דבר אחר [כפי שאומר הרמב''ם] אבל כדי שהשפה תבהיר למה הוא מתכוון [כפי שהוא הכרחי עבור נדרים] עליו לומר "כמו קרבן". זה תשובה טובה מאוד להראות שהר''ן אינו סותר את עצמו. אולם השאלה שנותרה היא כי נראה כי השפה בפועל של הר''ן אינה מקבלת הסבר זה כל כך. מה שאני מתכוון הוא שהר''ן אומר במסכת שבועות הסיבה שנדר צריך "כמו קרבן" היא כי הקדש עושה חליפין. [אם אחד אומר שהבהמה הזאת היא תמורת הקרבן הזה, זה תקף. [זה תמורת זה חל].  הבעל חי השני הופך גם לקרבן. זה נראה לי כמו סתירה לרעיון של רב שך [בתחילת הלכות נדרים] [אולם נקודה נוספת היא שאם נדר העיקרי הוא '' זה אסור לי'' אז קשה לראות שעצם מילים '' זה אסור לי '' נחשבות  תקפות רק כדרך קצרה לומר '' זה אסור כקרבן​'', כאשר '' זה אסור כמו קרבן '' הוא אסור רק כי הוא נחשב כהרחבה של הרעיון העיקרי שלנדר.] 

הדרך לענות על כך היא: יש הבדל בין התיאור של משהו לבין הדבר עצמו. הנדר עצמו תקף לא בגלל התפסה בדבר הנדור. אלא הנדר תקף כשלעצמו. אבל השפה צריכה להתכוון ישירות לכך שהוא אוסר לעצמו דבר שאינו אסור. והוא לא יכול לעשות זאת על ידי אמירת "זה אסור לי" כי זה יכול גם להישמע שהוא אומר משהו לא נכון. זה נשמע כאילו הוא אומר שזה כבר אסור

_________________________________________________

/

The person that proved Fermat's last theorem [Wiles] gave a talk [published in Quanta Magazine] in which he claimed everyone can learn Mathematics. The way that I see this as possible is by the path of learning of Rav Nahman by saying the words and going on. [People are accustomed to this in Torah learning where it takes a lot or review until you understand. So people do not usually expect to understand the sugia (subject) at first. They simply say the words, and come back to it. I  understood that the way one gets the idea after lots of review. I see this as applicable in Mathematics also. "Say the words and go on. Even if you do not understand at first , you will eventually understand. And if a few things remain hard to grasp, well so what? for the greatness of lots of learning goes above everything. [Conversations of Rav Nahman paragraph 76.]]

[But why learn Mathematics--you surely will ask. For me the answer is simple. My father encouraged my interests in Mathematics and Physics. So while I did no understand nor understand at present why this is important, I have the obligation of כבוד אב ואם Honor of one's father and mother. And  Confucius said the very fact that you are not walking on the path of your parents means (by the very definition of that term) that you are not honoring you father and mother. [It does not matter if they said to do so.

But for others that have not had parents that encouraged this let me mention some of the Rishonim that held from this. One would be the Gra who said any lack of knowledge in any of the Seven Wisdoms creates a lack of Torah knowledge times 100. [That is the quotation in the Intro to Euclid in Hebrew by a disciple of the Gra.] Other Rishonim would be Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the doctor and the Rambam. 

 z36 E minor  z36 nwc

My parents were definitely for the balanced path of Torah with Derech Eretz [work] They would not have agreed in any sense to anyone using Torah to make money.  And you can see this in the commentary of the Gra on Pirkei Avot where in the mishna in the first chapter which says "not to make Torah into a shovel to dig with" he brings the idea of "Meila"[transgressing] . Meila is when one makes use of a animal that has been dedicated to the Temple in Jerusalem. For example let's say one has a sheep and he says, "This sheep is for a burnt offering."  At that point the sheep can not be used for anything. But if let's say one does make use of it, that is called "meila" [transgressing--misuse] . This applies also to inanimate objects. Let's says one has a piano and he says, "This piano is for the Temple". There also he can not use it for anything. He has to bring it to the Temple. Then the priests there either use it for the services, or they can sell it. But before that if anyone uses it, that is called "meila." So anything holy, one can not make use of.

So you might ask then what about people that sit and learn Torah? Answer: They can receive charity [to one rishon, the Tashbatz], but they can not makes use of Torah to make money.  So making learning Torah into a 9-5 job is wrong. 

It seems to me that the greatest invention of my father is the one he will never get credit for. [I mean the infrared telescope and super sharp "copymate machine" using x rays at least he got credit for. [The first was owned by the USA  Army. The second he had a patent for. But laser communication seems to me to be the greatest thing of all [that he made at TRW. ]  This is fantastic because it is something like a telephone. There is a current, and superimposed on that current you talk and that makes a signal that can be heard above that current. Or maybe better said- it is like an ocean wave that is large, but has small ripples on top of it. That is the same thing as laser communication. The signal you want to send is superimposed on the laser. This makes a band width that is vastly larger than with radio signals. [And obviously can be sent on much longer distances without worrying about the problem of radio waves that disperse.]

[This laser communication was done the height of the Cold War so that the Russians could not eavesdrop on American communications between satellites. But TRW went under because of the two moles that were discovered there that were selling USA technology to the USSR. So TRW lost all their contracts, and their newest projects were sold to other aerospace companies. So my dad's name [Philip Rosten] was lost in that mix up. But he was in fact the one who made that system.  

You can see the idea of the Gra that lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms causes a decrease in understanding of Torah a hundred fold

 You can see the idea of the Gra that lack of knowledge in the Seven Wisdoms causes a decrease in understanding of Torah a hundred fold. [Seven wisdoms was the Trivium and the Quadrennium.]

But these do include the classification of the Rambam that the categories of the work of Creation and Divine chariot refer to Physics and Metaphysics. [The Rambam says this openly in the introduction to the Guide.]

Most secular subjects are not at all in the categories of positive things but rather mind destroying. So one does need a certain degree of intuition and common sense in deciding into what to devote ones time. Myself I strive for the approach of my parents. Which was in action highly secular but they still had a sense of the need of balance between Torah and derech ertez [the way of the Earth.] So in my approach I went more into the Torah aspect. But still I realize the need for this kind of balance.