here is a link to a old music file from around 1993 --mathematics

here is a link to a more recent file x86

David Bronson suggested to me many times ''Tosphot is always right'' [that is on the outside of the page of the Gemara], and I would have to agree. While on one hand you see a lot of effort to explain the Rambam starting from early Achronim [משנה למלך ]  and that gained a lot of steam from the time of Rav Chaim of Brisk until today, Still it seems this has caused a certain amount of lack of interest and neglect in digging into the depths of Tosphot. I experienced this first hand when I got to the Mir in NY. I had been used to trying to dig into Tosphot, but when I talked to other yeshiva bahurim [students] about  this, they would dismiss this --as irrelevant.  Eventually, I understood the reason for this. They were spending their morning hours  preparing for the classes of the roshei yeshiva [which were along the lines of Rav Chaim of  Brisk. While this is a great and important area of learning, still it leaves that whole area of Tosphot ignored

But even if I would want to recommend a movement of ''Back To Tosphot'', I still would not know how to go about this. The only way I could even begin to see the depths of Tosphot was because I had teachers [in Shar Yashuv] and my learning partner Bronson that showed the way. On my own I could barely manage this except after tremendous efforts. And in the meantime I also have tried to get into the path of Rav Chaim of Brisk as you see in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. 

[The basic reasoning here is two fold. One is that the deeper you dig into Tosphot. the more you see he was right all along even though at first glance it does not seem like that. But the Rambam is different, Very often he contradicts the Gemara openly, and it takes a lot of effort to try to fit him back in. And even then it is only a possibility, not a sure thing. For example Nida pg 2. The Gemara holds the teaching about the barrel and the mikve contradict each other. And for that reason it says the teaching about the barrel is R Shimon, not the sages. So for the Rambam to state the law is like both is more than a stretch. It is a direct contradiction. Can one answer this? Yes--but only if one is committed in the first place to say the Rambam must have had some reason for that. But why even start with that? Why not simply go like the Gemara in the first place? Why not be first committed to the idea that the Gemara must have had some reason to say these two teachings contradict?

[I think R. Shimon holds that  חקת השתא  is not a חזקה]=I mean to say this: The Gemara brings the mishna that says if a mikve is found to e lacking the proper amount then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The Gemara then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to e able to separate truma on it and it was found to be sour. in a public domain all טהרות separated are pure and in a private domain they are a doubt. The Gemara says  the teaching is R Shimon. Though this might be in Tosphot [I forget] I think R Shimon holds   חקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from Sota. A doubt in a public domain is pure and in a private domain is a doubt. And the sages of the Mishna hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

I think ר' שמעון holds that  חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה. I mean to say this: The גמרא brings the משנה that says if a מקוה is found  lacking the proper amount, then everyone who went into it is still not pure. The גמרא then asks from a teaching about a barrel that one put aside to be able to separate תרומה on it and it was found to be sour. In a רשות הרבים all טהרות separated are טהורות and in a רשות היחיד they are a doubt. The גמרא says  the teaching is ר' שמעון. Though this might be in תוספות  [I forget] I think  ר' שמעון holds   חזקת השתא  is not a חזקה so in both cases there is one חזקה against another. The cancel each other and so it is a doubt in case of doubt we learn from סוטה. A doubt in a רשות הרבים is טהור and in a רשות היחיד is a doubt. And the חכמי  the משנה hold  חקת השתא  is a חזקה so in both cases we  have two חזקות against one and so there is no doubt.  

אני חושב שר' שמעון סבור שחזקת השתא היא לא חזקה. אני מתכוון לומר כך: הגמרא מביא את המשנה שאומר שאם נמצא מקוה חסרה בכמות הראויה אז כל מי שנכנס אליו עדיין לא טהור. אחר כך שואלת הגמרא מהוראה על חבית שהניחו בצד כדי שיוכלו להפריד עליה תרומה ונמצא חמוץ. ברשות הרבים כל הטהרות שנעשו עליו הן טהורות וברשות היחיד הן בספק. הגמרא אומרת שההוראה היא ר' שמעון. למרות שזה יכול להיות בתוספות [אני שוכח] אני חושב שר' שמעון מחזיק חזקת השתא היא לא חזקה ולכן אז בשני המקרים יש חזקה אחת נגד אחרת.והן מבטלות זו את זו ולכן ספק במקרה של ספק אנו למדים מסוטה. ספק ברשות הרבים הוא טהור וברשות היחיד הוא ספק. וחכמי המשנה מחזיקים חזקת השתא היא חזקה ואז בשני המקרים יש לנו שתי חזקות נגד אחת ולכן אין ספק

There is  a strange dynamics in the religious world. That is  the hatred they have towards fry yidin (non religious). If this would be open that would be better. But they hide it because they need the money of secular Jews. They need to make pretend that we are all one family.

This affects baali teshuva [newly religious]. They are suspected of being flaky and ready on an instant's notice to return to their wayward ways. But I have not mentioned this in my blog before because I am not convinced that they are wrong. Baali teshuva are flaky. How else could it be? They, after all, threw out their parents. How loyal could they be to anyone else? 

The religious however make things worse because they despise fry yiden and that affects their attitude towards baali teshuva who are considered unter menschen [sub human]. After all the religious think that they themselves are uber menschen -super human.  This affects the area of shiduhim [marriage offers]. The baal teshuva thinks he is accepted as one of the family. And when a shiduch [a date with intent to see if marriage is possible] is offered, he thinks it is in good faith. But the religious only offer to baali teshuv baali mumim. [Girls with a hidden defect.]

 It is not well known that the Gra would not have held of the idea of paying people to learn Torah. You can see in his commentary  on Pirkei Avot on the Mishna in the first chapter that says not to use Torah to make money from he brings the event with the vessels of the Temple that were used by the king of Babylon. And also he brings the actual verse of Meila. [That is the prohibition of using something that was dedicated to the Temple for one's own use]. 

How does meila work? It is like this. Let's say you have a pen and you say, ''This pen is sanctified to the Temple.''  At that point, you can not use it,- nor anyone else. It must be brought to the Temple and sold and the proceeds go to different needs of the Temple.  This is how the Gra sees learning Torah. One must not get paid for doing so because that is the same as using a vessel that has been dedicated to the Temple.

 There is a difference in the middle ages from the fall of Rome until around the high middle ages. [Aquinas Rambam, Ibn Rushd.] Until then people were going with the neo platonic philosopher. Plotinus. so in understanding the unity of God, they were going with the idea of emanation --or an overflowing of God's light. but at no point were they saying that only God exists. Rather they understood there is a difference between the Creator and the created. But the problems of reconciling pure Monotheism [Divine Simplicity] with Neo-Platonic thought, led to abandoning Plotinus and going with Aristotle. Muslims had been going with Aristotle for a long time. But Jews and Christians had been trying for  to go with Plotinus. At some point. they gave up and decided that was not going to work. So you get the Rambam going a lot more with Aristotle than his predecessors. [But not completely. He still retains a lot of Neo Platonic thought.] Then finally, Aquinas made the final jump to Aristotle. 

But as Kelley Ross noted, that jump might have landed everyone in more problems than they started out with. When those problems became apparent. it would have made sense to rethink things and return to Plato. [taking kant into accountin understanding plato]

[I should add that not all Rishonim were on board with either philosopher. The one that comes tomind in Nahmanidess. And it is his approach  that is the reason the religious world is against all philosophy [as David Bronson pointed out to me.]  

 z83 music file

 כל העוסק בלימודו כעוסק בבניינו anyone who is involved with its study is considered as though he is involved with its building. But most people are not all that inspired by the idea of building the Temple. Even when the holy mount where the temple needs to be built was in the hands of Israel, the state gave it right back to the Wafk [The Muslim authorities]. So what I recommend is to learn the laws of the Temple. in the hope that someday we may merit to it rebuilding