A Levite and the tithes. See the Sifri Zuta and the Mishna.

 There are lots of questions about a לוי who has his own produce [grain from his own field]. I mean to say that the regular way of taking מעשר is one takes תרומה , then the מעשר ראשון and gives that to a לוי, Then the לוי takes a tenth and gives that to a כהן. And even after that, there is מעשר שני  and takes that to Jerusalem and gives a basket of that to the בית המקדש and the rest he eats himself with his family. But does a לוי also separate the מעשר ראשון of his own produce? And even though the normal order is that תרומה is first taken, what happens if it was not? Does the לוי take רומה of what was given to him? Or even of his own produce? These are all questions that רבינו שמשון and the רמב''ם deal with.

I would like to bring the משנה and ספרי זוטא and the ר''ש  and then the three places where the רמב''ם deals with these questions.

המשנה בתרומות פרק א' משנה ה. אין תורמים ממעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו 

 הר''ש  brings on that משנה the ספרי זוטא that says מנין לבן לוי שרצה לעשות ממעשר ראשון תרומה גדולה שעושה תלמוד לומר כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' מכאן שאם רצה לעשותו תרומה לאחרים עושה יכול אף שניטלה תרומתו יהא עושה אותן תרומה לאחרים תלמוד לומר את מקדשו ממנו בזמן שקדשו בתוכו עושה אותן תרומה לאחרים אין מקדשו בתוכו אינו עושה אותן תרומה לאחרים.  Then רבינו שמשון explains the meaning of the משנה thus, If one has מעשר ראשון from which it's תרומת מעשר  was taken but this מעשר ראשון was separated before the תרומה was taken, and thus is not obligated in תרומה, even so its תרומת מעשר was separated so it can not be made תרומה for other grain. But as long as the תרומת מעשר was not yet taken, it can be made תרומה for other grain.

This is to be plain enough.

But the רמב''ם approach is hard to understand.  He writes in laws of תרומות פרק ג הלכה כ''א וכ''ב    בן לוי שהיה לו מע''ר שא ניטלה ממנו תרומתו והניחו להיות מפריש עליו והולך הוא בטבלו מה שעשה עשוי שנאמר כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' תרומה מלמד שהוא עושה את כולו תרומה לאחר 

הפריש ממנו תרומת מעשר תחלה ואחר כך הניחו להיות מפריש עליו והולך עד שיעשה כולו תרומת מעשר ויתנו לכהן לא עשה כלום שנאמר את מקדשו ממנו בזמן שקדשיו בתוכו עושה אותו תרומה לאחרים אין מקדשיו בתוכו אינו עושה אותו תרומה לאחרים. This seems very different from רבינו שמשון because of these words: עד שיעשה כולו תרומת מעשר.  This seems clearly as רב שך and the חזון איש explain that he means he can make it תרומת מעשר for other grain, not תרומה.

 And this has to be the true explanation of the רמב''ם because later he writes that if one takes תרומה from מעשר ראשון from which the תרומת מעשר was not separated yet, his תרומה is not truma. I do not know how this could have been made more clear. 

 But the commentary of the רמב''ם on that משנה in תרומות seems hard to understand

I think he means this. If a לוי has his own ground and grows grain on it, That grain is obligated in תרומה without a doubt and also in תרומת מעשר. Let us say someone gives to HIM  מעשר ראשון. He can not tak תרומה  from the מעשר ראשון that was given to him for the sake of his own produce. He first gives the תרומת מעשר from what was given to him, and then takes תרומה and תרומת מעשר from his own produce [after he of course had called a name of מעשר ראשוןon some part of his own produce.]  thiS iS the language of the רמב''ם on that משנה, ואמרם ממעשר ראשון שלא ניטלה תרומתו כשיהיה לו ללוי זרע מאדמתו הוא חייב בתרומה בלי ספק וגם ישו מעשר שלקחו מישראל אין ראוי לו להוציא ממנו שיעור התרומה החייבת לזרעו ושיתננה לכהן לפי שיש לכהן באותו מעשר חוק וזכות והיא תרומת מעשר אבל יוציא תרומת מעשר ואחר כך יוציא ממנו התרומה החייבת לזרעו

There is a point here that the רמב''ם seems to make: that one can not take תרומה from the מעשר that was given him, not just because it is not obligated in תרומה but also because it would lessen the amount of the תרומת מעשר, and would be taking תרומה from what is actually obligated in תרומת מעשר. 

 Benjamin was one of the twelve tribes of Israel and his portion was right next to Judah where is the city of Jerusalem. There is there today a lot of Jewish settlements, and collectivity the whole area is called ''Benjamin''  [very aptly named  I must say.]. Yesterday a Palestinian ran over a young woman soldier  in a parking lot there. The Palestinian had a working permit. [Israel hands out about 150,000 working permits every year to allow Palestians to come into Israel to work.] 

To me this juss]t go to show what Aristotle wrote 2300 years ago: "When two peoples  do not get along together there is no choice but to separate them.

The Riemann hypothesis

 The Riemann hypothesis [+1/(n^ s)as n goes to infinity ] has to do with if you have a function zeta of a prime number if the zeros of that function [besides negative 2.-4, -6 ...] all are on a vertical line x=1/2/ and that is all part of number theory. my question is how would that same question apply to prime ideals? prime ideals are groups, not numbers and their main trait is anything in     the larger group [that they are a part of] that is multiplied by that prime ideal stays inside it --and it is prime [no two smaller ideals multiplied together make it up] 

I mean to say that much has been done with prime ideals but has anyone thought to look at them from the aspect of Riemann? After all there is a lot in common with algebraic ideals and numbers. 

So maybe here too is  connection?[Maybe even some answer about the Riemann hypothesis?]

[To see the connection between the zeta function and algebraic groups let me just mention that the only way that you evaluate the Riemann function is by extending it into the imaginary plane by means of the "i" and the "i" acts like a unitary matrix that rotates the vector, but leaves it's length untouched.]   

[i would surprized if some mathematician had no thought of this since to me it seems so obvious. After all, a main idea of Riemann was to show the the zeta function with a complex "s" [i.e. + n^s as n goes to infinity] equals a product of primes. That is exactly the same construction you use for prime ideals.

Rambam In Laws of Truma chapter 1 halacha 11).

I was noticing in the Rambam that grain that grew in the possession of an idolater in Israel and was bought by a Israeli and it's finishing work was done in the hand of the Israeli is obligated in truma and tithe from the Torah. (In Laws of Truma chapter 1 halacha 11). And yet in chapter 1 halacha 22 grain that grew outside of Israel and was brought to Israel and it finishing work was done in the hand of a Israeli is obligated in truma and tithe only from the words of the scribes.

And Rav Haim of Brisk explains there that the reason is you need two things for grain to be obligated in truma and tithe, First, that when it grew to a third of its full growth (ripe stage), it was in the possession of a Israeli. Second,  it's finishing work was done by the hand of  Israeli. 

 I realize that this is in no contradiction to the first halacha since the law is that possession of a idolater does not cause the obligation of truma and maaser to disappear. [Otherwise you could  that when it grew in the possession of an idolater and only the finishing work was done in the possession of a Israeli then it should be obligated only from the word of the Scribe. ]

[the subject  that possession of a idolater does not cause the obligation of truma and maaser to disappear i brought in a few places but mainly I remember it from Bava Metzia.]

no one really care what I write o I think there i ni much of a point to clarify thing>still for anyone who i interested I will ay a few words. There is an argument in the Gemara i a idolater buys land in Israel if the produce is obligated in the presents to the priests and levites. that i how address the question on the above law that even if it grew in the possession of an idolater still if the finishing work was done by a Jew, the produce i obligated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was noticing in the רמב''ם that grain that grew in the possession of anssss idolater in Israel and was bought by a Israeli and it מירוח was done in the hand of the Israeli is obligated in תרומה and מעשר from the תורה [דאורייתא]. (In הלכות תרומה פרק א'  הלכה י''א ). And yet in פרק א' הלכה כ''ב grain that grew outside of Israel and was brought to Israel and it's מירוח (smoothing of the stack of grain, it' finishing work) was done in the hand of a Israeli is obligated in תרומה and מעשר only from the words of the scribes [דרבנן].

And רב חיים מבריסק explains there that the reason is you need two things for grain to be obligated in תרומה and מעשר, First, that when it grew to a third of its full growth (ripe stage) it was in the possession of a Israeli. Second,  it's finishing work was done by the hand of  Israeli. 

 I realize that this is in no contradiction to the first halacha since the law is אין קניין לעכו''ם בישראל להפקיע מיי רומה ומעשר  [Otherwise you could  that when it grew in the possession of an idolater and only the finishing work was done in the possession of a Israeli, then it should be obligated only from the words of the Scribes. ]

שמתי לב ברמב''ם שתבואה שגדלה ברשותו של עובד אלילים בישראל ונקנה על ידי ישראלי והמירוח נעשה ביד הישראלי חייבת בתרומה ומעשר מהתורה [דאורייתא] . (בהלכות תרומה פרק א' הלכה י''א ). ובכל זאת בפרק א' הלכה כ''ב תבואה שגדלה מחוץ לישראל והובאה לישראל והמירוח (החלקת ערימת התבואה, זה עבודת גמר) נעשה ביד ישראלי חייבת בתרומה ומעשר רק מדברי סופרים [דרבנן]. ומבאר שם רב חיים מבריסק שהטעם הוא שצריך שני דברים כדי שתבואה תתחייב בתרומה ומעשר. ראשית, שכאשר גדלה לשליש מלוא גידולה (שלב בשל) הייתה ברשותו של ישראלי. שנית, עבודת הגמר שלה נעשתה ביד ישראלי. אני מבין שזה לא עומד בסתירה להלכה הראשונה שכן ההלכה היא אין קניין לעכו''ם בישראל להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר [אחרת אפשר לשאול שכאשר זה גדל ברשותו של עובד אלילים ורק עבודת הגמר נעשתה בהחזקה של ישראלי, אזי יש לחייבה רק מדברי הסופרים. ]

 People are not thinking of idolatry as a problem but to me it is the most serious problem. see Deuteronomy 17. But I suppose that if it is Jewish idolatry that makes it ok. so the cult that the Gra signed the letter of excommunication on is just a much idolatry as if they were worshipping some Hindu god.

the way of learning fast --amazing pieces of advice the Gemara is the way of learning fast [which is actually stated openly in the Gemara Shabat page 63. לעולם לגרס אנש אף על גב משכח ואף על גב דא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה כי תורך אהבתי

 One of the most amazing pieces of advice the Gemara is the way of learning fast [which is actually stated openly in the Gemara Shabat page 63. לעולם לגרס אנש אף על גב משכח ואף על גב דא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה כי תורך אהבתי "One should always learn fast, even though he forgets, and even though he does not even know what he  saying"][And this is brought at length in the Musar book Ways of the Righteous.]]And this came in very helpful to me while I was in two great Litvak Yeshivot the Mir in NY and Shar Yahuv. Both emphasize in depth learning --which on one hand is great. But on the other hand I was not  making much progress. The way  is just to say the words in order and go on, and I found that this with trust in God that I would eventually understand did help me a lot.  I know it does not take the place of the deep sort of learning of the Litvak Yeshivot, still this fact kind of learning did help me a lot and even came in useful when I went to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. After  all I had not been in Physics for a long time and had even forgotten high school math, so this  way of learning did help me catch up.[ In fact even in high school I hardly did any math at all, So even just to get into the physics program in the first place I had a ton of work just to catch up.] and even now a few years later I still do this fast kind of learning.

Before I went to prepare, I did not even recall how to divide fractions. I did that fast sort of learning that  and got through Trig and Calculus. When classes started, I was up to speed. But then I needed to the in depth sort of learning of the Litvak world that goes by the Gra. And so I still hold one needs some sessions to learn fast,, and other sessions for in depth.    

 There were amazing experiences in Uman, Ukraine for me. The best was I had a learning partner by the ziun of Rav Nacham who had that way of learning that had almost been forgotten. And it might already be lost. It is a sort of learning that gets into the hidden layers of depth in the Tophot and Gemara. Maybe one just needs the right sort of head for it. This is very different from the sort of in deep learning which is done today which is based on Rav Chaim of Brisk. That usually sees the argument between Tosphot and the Rambam and tries to find the reason for the Rambam. While this is also important, still it misses the depths of Tosphot. Eventually I decided to return to Israel, but I still feel a great debt of gratitude to all the wonderful people there that helped me in so many way.