Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In Interest do you go by the beginning or the end? Most Rishonim hold you go by the beginning. So even if the 100 that one borrows goes up to be worth 120, one still gives back 100. [In Torah law --deUraita] [If you would go by the end that would be interest.] Rav Shach says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law, "a guarantee without reduction." That is one borrows money, and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not interest. But Rav Shach sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow 100 and say he is going to pay back 100 [and then the 100 at time of payment goes up to be worth 120] this would be considered interest if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is interest from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the lender lends 100 and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth 120. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ribit]? The reason it is not ribit when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a guarantee without reduction also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  The two Gemaras where this all comes up are Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In נשך do you go by the beginning or the end? Most ראשונים hold you go by the beginning. So even if the מאה that one borrows goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים, one still gives back מאה. [If you would go by the end that would be נשך.] רב שך says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law a משכנתא בלי נכייתא. That is one borrows money and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This is not forbidden from the תורה. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not נשך. But רב שך sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow מאה and ואומר  he is going to pay back מאה [and then the מאה at time of payment goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים] this would be considered נשך if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is נשך from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the מלווה מלווה מאה  and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth מאה ועשרים. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ריבית]? The reason it is not ריבית when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a משכנתא בלא ניכייתא also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  

בבא מציעא ס''ז  וע''ה ע''א  

בנשך הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף? רוב ראשונים מחזיקים  בהתחלה. אז גם אם המאה שאדם לווה עולה להיות שווה מאה ועשרים, עדיין מחזירים מאה. [אם היית הולך על סוף זה יהיה נשך.] רב שך אומר כאן משהו שאני לא מבין. הוא שואל מדין אחר: משכנתא בלא נכייתא. כלומר לווים כסף וכערבות נותן שדה ללא הפחתת התשלום המגיע. זה לא אסור מהתורה. זה נשמע לי בדיוק אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה כך שגם זה לא נשך. אבל רב שך רואה בזה קושי באופן זה: אם היה לווה מאה ואומר הוא הולך להחזיר מאה [ואז המאה בשעת התשלום עולה לשווה מאה ועשרים] זה ייחשב נשך אם לאו על העובדה שאנחנו הולכים בהתחלה. [בטח חסר לי כאן משהו כי לי שני החוקים נשמעים אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה אז אינם נשך מהתורה.]

לראות את הנקודה שלי דמיינו מתי המלווה מלווה מאה והוא יודע שבזמן התשלום זה יהיה שווה מאה ועשרים. האם יש ספק שזה ריבית ? הסיבה שזה לא ריבית כשהוא לא יודע את העתיד  כי העתיד בספק. ואנחנו יודעים שהסיבה שמכנתא בלא ניכייתא היא גם משום שאינו יודע שירוויח בחרישה ובזריעה.

 There are problems in the religious world that are hard to understand. The major solution is that the higher one goes on the scale of numinous value, the easier it is to fall from positive value to negative value. That is -if you take the scale of values to be increasing from pure form [the vessel] with no content to infinite God with no form, then you can see that for every true positive value, there are many negative values. The Sitra Achra. 

But in areas of all form no content -Logic-the fall from the true is not evil, but simply mistakes. But as ne goes into areas of greater content, the mistakes become the Dark Side.  

So you can see how the religious world (outside of the straight and narrow of authentic Torah--the Gra), becomes fanaticism for he Dark Side.

See the Friesian School approach.

Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change

 Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change. From balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit or about 21 Celsius to around 1,000,000 Celsius. They changed their doctrine of when to go to climate change about two years ago to include the sort of scenario that is going on now.

And as for they have been saying about that Ukraine is run now by Fascists --that is not so absurd as it sounds. I myself barely escaped with my life. 

 I think I had a kind of attachment with God when I got to Israel after some years of study in the great Litvak Yeshivot of NY. But I have never been able to figure out "what it meant". Was there some sort of special mission for for or what?  In mystic writings this kind of "Devekut" attachment is referred to as attachment to the Infinite Light. אור אין סוף. It does not say a lot but it is is indicative of what happens when the ight of the Next World Seeps into this world.

The best clarity I came to about this issue was when I began to consider that "Reason" alone can not justify Torah. There is a gap. So for about ten days I realized that questions on Torah were not all motivated by hearts that were not seeking the truth. So I wondered what justification for Torah could there be? Then I discovered the web site of Dr Kelley Ross who answers this in this way. There is a third source of knowledge [ besides empirical and besides reason.]

I was reminded of this because Ronen a friend of mine here has said to me a few times that he can not see the Litvak approach ["Learning Torah is the best thing"] as anything but an intellectual approach.

I have tried to explain to him  that there is a sort of Divine light that comes along with learning simple and plain Gemara Tosphot and the Maharsha.

I think that the subject of Meta-Physics is important but I have not come to any sort of clarity about what approach is best. From what I can tell there are three major schools, Hegel, Leonard Nelson and the Intuitionists. [GE Moore, Prichard.]

It has already been noted by very great philosophers the problems with 20th Century philosophy. E,g, Robert Hanna.. Michael Sugrue.

[See the criticism of Analytic Philosophy by Robert Hanna and the criticism of the existentialists by Michael Sugrue ] but what is left standing after all the bullets have settled? Mainly these three that I have mentioned.

Now I see Dr Kelley Ross is not updating his blog anymore. This makes me very sad for I have gained greatly from his insights in the Kant/Fries/Leonard Nelson approach. Even though Many think Kant can stand on his own, I can not  see it. I think Kant needs the modifications of Fries and Nelson.

I should mention that the Kant-Fries approach made a lot of sense for me in terms of its idea that there are truths that can not be known by reason or empirical knowledge. This idea was to provide a foundation for the Kantian categories. But with Dr Kelley Ross got expanded towards the experience of the Divine. But it looks as though his writings are now lost.

 

This would definitely be "climate change."

 I imagine that people are not afraid of nuclear war with Russia. I am not sure why this is>I used to think that that the end of the human race would have been a issue of concern. So to try and establish some kind of  accord is far from people's mind. 

But on the other hand, an accord was established--those were the Minsk accords which were ignored by the Ukraine. So I guess if the words of the Ukraine mean nothing, they would understand force.

But instead of the Minsk Accords people think that a nuclear war with Russia would be okay. I truly do not see this. I have a  certain degree of hope for mankind. I would rather not see the Human Race melt away in an hydrogen bomb fireball. 

This would definitely be "climate change."

I mean there are already US forces in active duty in Ukraine. So would perhaps Moscow think that the USA is a legitimate target?  And who says that Russia would not respond? And if you think this is some kind of moral crusade to defend the innocent, you have not had any experience with the Ukraine.