Translate

14.7.17

It is  fact that Plato was pretty much on the side of Sparta. That is he does not seem to be very pro-democracy as Karl Popper pointed out.. But most Greek States saw a difference between their types of constitutions and tyranny. They all considered themselves free as oppose to what they would have been under Persian rule. So what was the difference? Sparta had kings and ephors. It was the type of government they choose.The kings were limited in power. This is I think the model of government that the founding fathers of the USA. 

10.7.17

The problem I think was too much Coka Cola. I was having that mixed with coffee once in the morning. But I think now that might have caused the problem because yesterday I had just one glass again of coke after not touching it since a problem arose in my kidney and I felt right way  something react in my kidney.

9.7.17

Joy on the Festival

I would like to suggest that שמחה on the  חגים requires bringing a קרבן שלמים, but only once. You can not separate the requirement of שמחה from bringing a קרבן שלמים  on the חג because it is openly one of the three things one must bring to the Temple. ראיה חגיגה and שלמי שמחה. The first "being seen" ראיה is definitely a קרבן עולה. The second, the חגיגה is a קרבן שלמים. The third is definitely another קרבן שלמים. But שמחה is required all seven days of the festival. If one would be required to bring a קרבן שלמים every day or every other day then where is this in the משנה? Why has the משנה the גמרא and the רמב''ם skipped this? If one would be required every day to bring a new קרבן שלמים you would think someone would bring it up! To me it seems clear one is required  one קרבן שלמים for joy and the rest of the festival one fulfills the commandment of joy with just regular meat and wine.


ברצוני להציע כי שמחה בחגים דורשת להביא קרבן שלמים, אבל רק פעם אחת. אתה לא יכול להפריד את הדרישה של שמחה מן הבאת קרבן שלמים על החג כי זה בגלוי אחד מהשלושה הדברים שאחד חייב להביא למקדש, ראיה, חגיגה ושלמי שמחה. הראיה "שתראה" הראשון היא קרבן עולה.  החגיגה היא קרבן שלמים. השלישי הוא עוד קרבן שלמים. אבל()  שמחה נדרשת כל שבעת ימי החג. אם אחד יידרש להביא קרבן שלמים מדי יום או פעם ביומיים אז איפה זה במשנה? מדוע המשנה הגמרא והרמב''ם דלגו על זה? אם אחד יידרש כל יום כדי להביא קרבן חדש שלמים היית חושב שמישהו יביא את זה. לי זה נראה ברור שנדרש  קרבן שלמים לשמחה רק פעם אחת ושאר החג אחד ממלא את מצוות השמחה עם  בשר רגיל ויין.

I looked at the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and now I realize there is a lot more to this subject than I had been aware of. 
I would like to suggest that שמחה on the three festivals requires bringing a peace offering but only once. You can not separate bringing a peace offering from Joy on the festival because it is openly one of the three things one must bring to the Temple. ראיה חגיגה and שלמי שמחה. The first "being seen" ראיה is definitely a burnt offering. The second, the חגיגה is a peace offering. The third is definitely another peace offering. But joy is required all seven days of the festival. If one would be required to bring a peace offering every day or every other day then where is this in the Mishna? Why has the Mishna the Gemara and the Rambam skipped this? If one would be required every day to bring a new peace offering you would think someone would bring it up! To me it seems clear one is required  one peace offering for joy and the rest of the festival one fulfills the commandment of joy with just regular meat and wine.

8.7.17

My father also was not happy working under any boss. Outside the general work he did when the USA government needed some engineer for any one of its big projects, he would invent something and market it on his own. He never sought to work for the USA government like the U-2 or the Orion or Star Wars. They always recruited him and as soon as the wok was done he immediately set out on his own. However my impression was that he never had a bad boss. He seemed to have always enjoyed a large degree of autonomy in any project he was working on.

7.7.17

Freedom is like the snowball that started an avalanche.  Plato noted this and I also noticed that Athens choose wrong with Socrates but also the city, Epidamus that had gone to Corcyra for help and was refused and then went to the Corinthians who did help. Then Corcyra came and laid siege to the place and Athens sided with Corcyra! Try to figure that one out.
The general way of taking "truma" {the part of the crop that goes to the priest} is by physically removing that percentage of the crop. The same goes for "maaser" the tenth that is given to the Levi (a person descended from the tribe of Levi from his father's side.) This is what I think made the Rambam explain the mishna in Tracatate Trumah in a kind of forced way that does not seem to be in accord with its simple explanation.
The Mishna in Truma (ch 4) says simply
המפריש מקצת תו''ם מוציא ממנו תרומה עליו אבל לא למקום איר אחר ר''מ אומר אף מוציא ממנו תרומה על מקום אחר

 "When one separates a part of truma and maaser from a stack of grain, one can not take from it ("it" masculine gender) truma and maaser to another place but only to itself.  R. Meir says: Also to another place.
The simple explanation is like the Raavad  that since the part he separated is not the full amount [percentage] thus the entire stack is still mixed with "tevel" {unfixed grain that has not had truma and maaser separated from it yet.}  The reason is the general rule held by the sages אין ברירה ["No choice" i.e. "There is no reverse choice".] That means he can not take from the stack of grain one Seah {one measure} and then say this seah is maaser for 9 seah in this other stack. The reason? We can not say that in reverse there is choice to say what he now holds is tevel.            
This is certainly what the mishna sounds like and it goes well with the fact that R Meir says he can do so because R Meir hold יש ברירה, "There is reverse choice."
But then the obvious question is then the same problem exists for that very same stack of grain. Why can he take a seah and say "This seah is maaser for 9 seah in the stack?" If אין ברירה then אין ברירה. If there is no choice then there is no choice.

So the Rambam in Laws of Trumah ch 3:7 says when one separates a partial amount of truma he has to take truma from it (from the grain he separated.) That is to say it does not have the category of truma at all.

The question then the achronim [later authorities] ask is then what about the preious law in the Rambam ch 3:6 where it says if he separates 1/61 what he has separated is truma and he then goes and take the remaining amount that is needed to complete the right percentage of 1/60? [1/60 is a drop more than 1/61].
The Rash (Rabainu Shimshon (grandson of Rashi)) brings the Yerushalmi  that asks on the contradiction between the two mishnas these halachot are built on and it says in the later case he intends to separate more. This the Rash says means when he does not intend to separate more, the part he has separated is straight "tevel" and does not have the category of truma at all.
[I have not worked this all out but my question here is this: Is it possible the Rambam holds with this Rash?] 
I mean halaca 7 would be when he does not intend to separate any more and halaca 6 is when he intended to separate a complete percentage but missed by a drop?
I saw that Rav Shach explains the Rambam exactly the opposite from the Rash and I am wondering why this is necessary? That is Rav Shach says the Rambam holds when he does not intend to separate any more it has the full category of truma and maaser and when he does intend to separate more it does not because truma and maaser do no work in reverse. Then halaca 6 is simply not a case of working in reverse but of simply then and there not separating enough at one time.



6.7.17

The way I understood Paul even before I read the some of the Recognitions and Homilies of Clement of Rome {the first pope, the direct disciple Peter) was the aspect of circumcision that is a part of the process of conversion. My later reading of Clement of Rome {not Alexandria} merely confirmed this reading. In any case, it does seem there was a serious debate about circumcision between Paul as opposed to Peter and James.

This debate is almost reduced to nothing in the minds of modern day Christians. it is so to speak "papered over."
That is to put it simply modern day Christianity is Pauline, not Peterine.
[This seems to me to be a serious matter and why it is ignored by all Christians is a mystery to me. The idea of getting back to the core values of the original Christians seems like a worthy goal, but in that case wold it not make more sense to go back to Peterine Christianity? What seems more authentic Paul's version that he knew from hearsay, never from the mouth of Jesus, or Peter and James who knew him personally and heard directly what he had to say? If just hearing in the spirit is enough then why bother to come in the flesh at all?

There is a lot of time and effort in the Christian based on getting back to the original church. This comes a lot from the Protestant side but it is also a general tendency. Still for some reason no one considers the fact that the original church did not include Paul and that he never saw it. The original church only include Jesus, James, Peter, John and the other first disciples.

To get a good description of the original church one would have to go to the actual witnesses.

The direct contractions between Jesus and Paul are numerous. Too many to count. But for the sake of consistency Christians ignore them, and consider Paul to be authoritative and then try to get the words of Jesus to fit with Paul. The place you see this approach is flawed in in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions where the differences between Peter, James and Paul are not edited out but spelled out.

The basic difference is this: to Peter and James there is only one revelation defining absolute and unchanging standards of human behavior and opinion, that of Moses from Sinai. Everything else throughout history which is not of it is the product of reason, imagination, or madness. To Paul, the Torah was a stumbling block. Anti-nomianism it is called.



5.7.17

former USSR has a lot of extremely competent doctors

Just for information; The former USSR has a lot of extremely  competent doctors but with little or no equipment.--Just in case someone needs something and can not afford it in the USA. Besides the ultra sound which is about $3.00 the diagnoses and analysis is not paid for at all. Sometimes you can give a tip and sometimes they get  angry if you try to pay for anything. The medicine they prescribe are usually pennies. {The doctors were Soviet trained, but the general high standards continue in the training of doctors and STEM. Nothing was so valuable in the USSR as expertise, in spite of the propaganda about the proletariat.]

Nietzsche said the objective — scientific — approach to history was psychologically and ethically devastating to men.

Let me confess a flaw in my own self. Not the major flaw-but one of many. I have a seemingly unquenchable thirst for history. {But not USA history. Rather what is Roman and European history.}
Some people have rightfully questioned what is the value of learning history. Especially the Rambam and Nietzsche. (Perhaps my own desire for this kind of knowledge comes from a will to understand the present day world.)

Nietzsche said  the objective — scientific — approach to history was psychologically and ethically devastating to men.
 The Rambam said it is straightforward Bitul Torah. After all what is history? What people did? Who? Lincoln or maybe some lowly Southern soldier?  Causes and effects? Who knows? All history is worth is just relaxation time.
 and even that might not be good since the authors might very well have some agenda up their sleeve--as they usually do.