Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]

Character correction I think is best done like Rav Israel Salanter said--by learning Musar. [That is Books on morality written during the Middle Ages]. But I wanted to add that an idea of taking some paragraph or two about what I need to correct in myself and say it right away in the morning when I get up.
I think this has a long term effect. For example one can take that beginning paragraph about trust in God from the Madragat HaAdam. Also the one about accepting the yoke of Torah from the Nefesh haHaim by Rav Haim of Voloshin.

[The thing is you have to know what it is you ought to correct. So there is a need to go through the basic set of Musar books. That is the basic set of Medieval books starting from the Chovot Levavot. But also the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter like Rav Isaac Blazer.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.  I encountered I kind of analogy in a comment I saw on some site about a problem in the Mormon world. That is to say there was a girl that was coverted; but then encountered the cold shoulder. So this comment said the problem was this: People  try to covert others in order to get "points" but then the treatment they give to those they convert is like  "Old Money". [Either you are born into it or no.] I thought this helps to explain this phenomenon in the religious world that I encountered.

[There are plenty of other explanations, but I was looking for something a little more down to earth. For example we find in Rav Nahman the idea that where holiness is, there the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) specifically spends most of its energy to entrap and catch its prey. סביב רשעים יתהלכון is a verse from pslams that express this idea round about go the wicked. That is the wicked surround the holiness trying to get in.]

The explanation that I find more satisfying is that people try to convert secular people to their way of belief in order to get brownie points,- but then treat them like trash, the way "old money" treats others. That is as second rate citizens or sub humans. [That is if you are not born into the club, then you will be treated politely but as soon as you are no longer thought of as an asset or source of money, then you will find the very same people you thought were your best friends will turn against you. This is especially in the religious world which has no source of income except by means of secular Jews. So this is more pronounced there.



Just to be fair I ought to add that Moshe Israel mentioned an opposite problem in the Reform world--that of "the new rich"  nouveau riche. So in fact it is hard to find a proper kind of balance and a decent place to sit and learn Torah.

The actual Constitution of the USA I think is mainly based on the political structure of England in the 1700's. However I agree that natural Law played a large part in the basis of the USA.. But natural Law I think had a basis in Saadia Gaon and Maimonides and then later developed by Aquinas.

The Rambam has an approach that is like this. At first mankind needed natural law as was revealed to Abraham the Patriarch. Only then could the revelation at Mount Sinai take place.

Aquinas develops this idea further to combine it with Aristotle's teleology.[That the are natural goals].

[This is just my basic impression. i really have not had time to study these sources. However I am pretty sure that if you look at England and specifically Daniel Defoe's essays you will see that the USA Constitution is almost an exact blueprint of the political structure of England except in the significant areas where it departs from the English model because of issues that cause the revolution in the first place.

intense review

You find sometimes in the Gemara the idea of review. Rav Pedat reviewing one lesson with a student 400 times. Or another amora learning a law 40 times [that the meal of Purim is only in the daytime].

Intense review was certainly emphasised in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים that emphasizes learning fast and also review.

So I generally bounce back and forth between these two approaches.

When it comes to some subjects--i realize that no matter how much review I do I will not really gain much understanding until I have gone over all or most of the material. There are other areas that I feel review is a good idea.

 There was a period I forgot the importance and depth of Tosphot until I began learning with David Bronson. Then I was more or less reminded of the importance and depth of Tosphot. [Even those I had been introduced to this important aspect of learning in Shar Yashuv, I had forgotten about it completely.]
At any rate, it became known in the Litvak Yeshiva World that both approaches are necessary. both intense depth of learning and also fast learning which is done in the afternoon.

Since Lithuanian yeshivas are at the top and peak of their game I have nothing to add to their standards of excellence. But I DO THINK THIS WAY OF LEARNING FAST by just saying the words and going on is a precious gift that can and ought to be used also for mathematics and physics.
For not everyone can become a genius in Physics but that does not mean that one should ignore it. It is important even if one can not make it to the top of the field. In an unexpected way you can see this in the books of Rav Nahman about the hidden wisdom that is inside of all creation. But to claim Rav Nahman would agree with me goes too far. Rather the best support for this idea comes from the Rishonim [medieval authorities] like the Rambam and Rav Ibn Pakuda [and the general approach of schools of Torah in Spain]

Aurobindo noticed something about the intermediate zone that is more or less ignored by the religious world. That is Ego Inflation. Sometimes people that do a certain degree of work in some kind of Divine service get to some spiritual level. But then they think of themselves as much more significant than they really are. Or sometimes they are simply being used by the Dark Side  without their being aware of it.

Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits.

My own feeling is that Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits. [That is Torah is a goal centered system. At least that is clear from the Talmud itself and also from the Rambam.] That includes the commandment of learning Torah. And that was probably the major motivation for his starting of the Musar Movement. -Though this is usually not stated openly. But that does bring often to the question that many people have that the results do not seem to conform to the intention. At least in my own case I think at least subconsciously I had thought that joining up with the religious world would help bring to family values.--Little did I know! But the fact of human messing up a system does not necessarily invalidate the system. [Unless it is clear that the actual implementation actual was a direct result of the system itself--not just a warping of the system for personal greed].
My feeling about this is that it comes under the category of the Dialectic of Hegel.  [That is to say, I do not think that the dialectic of Hegel is only a process that takes place by means of Logic. --Though that is in fact one area. But I think it takes places also in the categories of Being. So the more you get into something, often that process in itself ends up the exact opposite of what you thought it was supposed to bring about.] {Schopenhauer however would have a different idea of this process. ]

Reason with Faith

The approach of the rishonim to combine faith with reason. It was pointed out to me that that is not necessarily the approach of the prophets. It does seem clear that the prophets wanted to be understood on their own terms.

My own approach is that I have seen a bit too much of religious fanaticism to think that faith without reason leads to much good. Reason without a priori assumptions also is empty.
So to me it seems the approach of Reason with Faith is the best. But then what is the right kind of synthesis? Immediate non intuitive knowledge. as brought in Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross makes the most sense to me.

Talmud Babylonian Bava Mezia page 43a Tospfot.

Tosphot asks a question on Rav Huna. The Maharam Shif makes note that the same question could apply to Rav Nahman. Besides that I also have a question on the answer of Tospfot to that question.

The Mishna says when one gives to a money changer money to guard that was not wrapped up, the money changer can use the money and so if it is lost then he has to pay it back. Rav Huna said not just if it was lost in a small accident but also in a big accident. That is he is a borrower since he can use it. Rav Nahman says only in a small accident but in a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Tosphot asks on Rav Huna whether a seller can use the money he receives before the buyer has picked up the fruit that he is buying. [That is before the actual deal is done]. If he can  use it then there is a question from the barber. [If one pays a barber with money (bedek habait) that one dedicated for use in the Temple. then he is not transgressing the prohibition of meila until the haircut begins.] If he can not use it then why can he not say "your money was burned up in the attic before you picked up the fruit and since I did not own the money at that time then the deal is off."
So the Maharam Shif asks why not ask the same thing on Rav Nahman. Normally you would respond well the question does not apply to Rav Nahman because to him the money changer is only a paid guard who can not use what he guards. But here we have a case where the paid guard can use what is is guarding.

במשנה יש דין הנותן כסף לשולחני לשמור אם הכסף אינו חתום אז השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף ולכן אם הכסף נאבד השולחני חייב. לדעת רב הונא הוא חייב גם אם הכסף נאנס באונס גדול כמו גזלן עם נשק. היינו יש לו דין כמו שואל. רב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבד אבל אונס גדול פטור כמו הדין של שומר שכר. תוספות שואלים מן המשנה נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פירות יכול לחזור בו היינו בקניין רגיל אין חלות של קניין עד שהלוקח מושך את הפירות. זה שמשך המוכר את הכסף אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד. אז תוספות שואלים ממה נפשך לדעת רב הונא. אם המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה זה שנתן לספר אינו חייב במעילה מיד? היינו שיש לנו את הדין גזבר או מי שיש לו כסף של בדק הבית שנתן את הכסף לבלן ה גזבר חייב במעילה אבל אם נתן את הכסף לספר לא. החילוק הוא שמיד שנתן כסף לבלן הוא יכול לרחוץ מיד אבל בספר אין קניין עד שמתחיל את התספורת. אז אם מוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף עד שלא נגמר את הקניין למה מי שנתן לספר אינו חייב מיד. מצד שני אם המור אינו יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה המוכר אינו יכול להגיד ללוקח נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה? היינו עד שלא נגמר את הקניין נשרפו הכסף. אז אם אין אחריות למוכר הוא יכול לומר נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה.
המהר''ם שיף שואל למה לא לשאול אותו דבר על רב נחמן? לרב נחמן השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף הגם שהוא שומר שכר ולכן יש לשאול המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אבל אינו חייב באונסים. תוספות עונים בתירוץ הראשון אין שמירה לכסף אלא בקרקע. אבל אני שואל שזה היה צריך להיות גם בשולחני עם מעות צרורות! והוא אינו חייב!

[So just to be clear--I think what the Litvak Torah world does in trying to keep out evil people is a great thing. The problem is that they usually do not pick the right ones to throw out.]

I noticed that in the two great Litvak yeshivas that I was in there was a kind of exclusivity. --that is a kind of attitude that only we have the truth. And to some degree they are correct. When you look at the general religious world it is hard not to notice that the ones that have really\ quality are the Litvak yeshivas.  But I try to hold more from a kind path that you see in some Rishonim [medieval authorities] where there is also an emphasis on Metaphysics and Physics.

And I did anyway have troubles in the Litvak world. So even though I recognize their point about the importance of Gemara Rashi and Tosphot in depth and still wish that I would be able to sit and learn Torah all day like they do, I have found that it does not work so well for me. And after that I anyway started paying attention to the Rambam and the חובות הלבבות about the importance of learning Aristotle and Physics.

The thing about the Litvak world was that as long as I was a part of it, things were great. That is in Shar Yashuv and in the Mir Yeshiva in NY. But once I came to Safed I kind of dropped out of it and then found that I was no longer welcome when I wanted to get back in.
 There is some effort to keep out evil influences and I guess that is what they thought of me. But they are for some reason not really all that successful in keeping out evil influences. For example they ignore the two important warnings of Rav Shach and the Gaon of Villna--the Gra. So as David Bronson noticed--they do try to keep out people that are connected with the Dark Side--but they usually mix up who in fact really is a problem.

[The problem with the Sitra Achra in the Torah world I admit is hard to discern. You really need "faith in the wise" to believe that the Gra was right and Rav Shach also. It is not visible on the surface. And also in terms of the writings of the Ari it is not obvious at first glance why the Gra was right. It takes a certain degree of discernment to see the problems.[I should add that however this problem is not limited to the Dark Side in the world of Torah. Because in fact in every area of value there is an equal and opposite area of value that pretends and poses as if it is the real thing.]

c

Spinoza. A few critiques.

 A few critiques.

When in high school I used to try to learn Spinoza. I was never on the intellectual level to even begin to criticize him. But eventually I began to notice a few things. One is that all the rishonim [medieval authorities] hold that God created the world something from nothing. Not from himself. [I mean to say that in Torah thought, God is simple. He has no substance, nor form. So the world is not made of his substance. He has no substance. I also noticed at some point that Leibniz has an extended critique on the proofs of Spinoza. I also saw at some point in a footnote on a book on Aristotle by an Israeli professor that Aristotle puts on substance lesser restrictions than Spinoza does. That is to say the function of substance in Aristotle is the sub layer that modes are applied to. Hot cold etc.But Spinoza has substance occupying a much more difficult position. That is to Spinoza substance can not be effected by anything else.

Last but not least I noticed that Hegel has a few points that I had not thought of:the fact that Spinoza does not get from substance what he wants. He does have "nature naturing" [as Dr. Kelley Ross points out.] But that does not come out of substance. It is added in. [To Spinoza substance does have infinite modes but that still does not get to nature naturing.] So at some point I decided to go with the basic idea of Torah that God created the world something from nothing. Not from Himself.

I also at that time took note that the Ari himself states this very thing a few times in the beginning of the Eitz Haim.

The idea of Emanation of the Ari does not contradict creation from nothing as you can see right in the start of the Eitz Haim.

I might add that the Rambam makes a point in the beginning of Mishne Torah that the verse Know that the Lord is God, There are none else besides Him" means simply that there are no gods besides God but in a deeper way also that nothing has independent existence besides God

learn at a fast rate

I was on the street and saw a woman selling the pamphlets of Rav Shick about learning fast--which comes from Rav Nahman of Breslov. I mentioned to her that I saw the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir in NY Rav Shmuel Berenbaum in the afternoon learn at a fast rate. I walked by his place in the start of the afternoon session and towards the end the the afternoon I saw he had progressed more than ten pages.
[And in terms of Gemara learning -that is a lot].


I think it is  a good idea to apply this method of learning to Mathematics and Physics. That is to have a few fast sessions in which one just says the words and goes on until he finishes the book--and then starts over again. But also to have a few sessions of learning in depth with immediate review. That is how Litvak yeshivas anyway learn. The morning for deep learning and the afternoon for fast learning.

[The reason to apply this to math is more or less along the lines of the rishonim that held that physics and metaphysics are important to learn besides the regular session in Gemara.

[I might add that in Shar Yashuv and with my learning partner David Bronson, I noticed that to get inside of Tosphot it is needed to spend a great deal of time on even just one page of Gemara. But that woulkd have to come under the category of in depth learning. That does not take away the need to do all of Shas as the Gra and Rav Nahman pointed out.]

bullying

Some girls asked me about bullying--that is what were my experiences [in school]? My answer was that I never experienced anything like that at all. The reason is that when I was in school this was simply a different day and age. That is I was in Newport Beach CA in Mariners elementary school and then later in Hawthorn elemntry school [BH] and then Beverly Hills High School. Clearly something terrible was happening in the world in the 1960's in such a way that a new world appeared in the 1970's in which the world became a crazy place. The 1960's was a transition from the world of the 1950's and the 1970's. The world became a madhouse. But I was mainly guarded from the problems since I was in the Mir in NY [after high school] and then later in Safed in Israel . So I was more or less unaware of how drastically the world had changed. What does it all mean? I am not sure.
[I might add that the reason I was accepted in the Mir in NY was that I already knew some Hebrew since I learned Torah in Temple Israel in Hollywood and after that in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv. I have to add that in some ways I think Shar Yasuv was superior to the Mir in terms of their analysis of Tospfot. But the Mir was more into the path of Rav Haim from Brisk.]
Since most of the time in the 1970's and 1980's I was involved in the Torah I did not see what was going on around me. Only when I emerged from my shell I saw the religious world in itself had become a hell hole. The explanation of this I found in Rav Nahman's idea of Torah scholars that are demons.יש תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים כמובא בזוהר פרשת פנחס/
That is to say that the Dark Side has penetrated the religious world and taken it over.

The solution to this problem seems to me to be more or less to go to a Litvak Yeshiva that follows the path of the Gra and Rav Shach as far as possible. [I assume there must be places like that even though I do not have the merit to be anywhere near one/ My impression is that I myself would not have had such terrible problems if I had simply stuck with the straight Torah path of the Gra and the Litvak world. It was the fact that I more or less left that path and then my attempts to get back in ended in failure.]

Bava Mezia page 43a. First Tosphot on the page. The question of Tosphot

  Bava Mezia it seems to me the question of Tosphot is thus. [And I should add that clearly Tosphot thinks he is asking on Rav Huna even though it can be expanded to Rav Nahman also. This you can see in the language of Tosphot where he clearly points his question towards Rav Huna. but the fact that Tosphot is on the question of RavNahman we can see he is also asking on Rav Nahman.]
  The question is this:There is no משיכה for money. I mean to say this. If the money given to the money changer would be a loan then fine. We can see that the money changer would be obligated as a person that took a loan. But he is not a borrower. he simply has permission to use the money. That does not make him a borrower. It would make him someone that borrowed an object like an ax. But money is not an ax. There is no קניין on the money as if it would be an ax.
  [The unstated problem I am trying to adress here is that the question of Tosphot seems to be more appilicable to Rav Nahman than to Rav Huna-because to R yohanan the whole reason that money does not acquire is so the seller can not say to the buyer your wheat was burned up in the barn before you took it home. This does not seem to apply to Rav Hiuna who holds the seller in that case would be liable.]
  I was not able to learn this Gemara for a few days sadly enough. But today I went to the mikveh in the sea and on the way to the library the intenion of Tospfot became clear to me.
I am still looking for a place I can sit and learn Torah but without any success.
  Anyway after writing the above paragraphs I want to just add a little bit of background as far as I can remember the gemara itself.  In the Mishna we have the law that if you give to a money changer money to guard --but the money is not sealed, the money changer can use it. But if he loses it he must pay it back. The mishna says "if he looses it:" but Rav Huna said also if he looses it by means of a accident that was not his fault he still has to pay it back. Rav nachman said only if he loses it but if it a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a teaching that says if a person that has in his possession an object of "bedek habait" gives it to a to a money changer to guard and the moeny changer uses the moeny, then the first person is liable for meila.
Tosphot asks from the mishna נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.
בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. שאלת תוספות היא כך .אין משיכה לגבי מעות. דהיינו אם המצב היה שהשולחני קיבל מעות בתור הלוואה הכל היה בסדר. אבל הוא אינו לווה. הוא פשוט קיבל כסף לשמור הגם שיש לו רשות להשתמש עם הכסף. וזה אינו גורם לו להיות לווה. אבל הוא גם אינו שואל בגלל שכסף אינו חפץ. אובייקט.
השאלה שאני משתדל לענות עליה היא ששאלת תוספות נראית יותר להיות שייכת לרב נחמן. היינו שהסיבה שאין משיכה במעות היא בגלל החשש שהמוכר יגיד ללוקח חיטיך נשרפו בעליה. וזה שייך רק לרב נחמן אבל לרב הונא הנפקד הוא שואל ולכן חייב באונסים. אבל עכשיו רוצה לומר שהשאלה שייכת  במיוחד לרב הונא בגלל שאין משיכה במעות אלא אם כן הוא לווה. ובמצב שלנו הוא אינו לווה וגם אינו שואל. הרקע כאן הוא זה. החוק במשנה הוא המפקיד מעות פתוחות לשלחני ונאבדו השולחני חייב בגלל שהייתה לו רשות להשתמש בהן .רב הונא אמר אפילו אם נאנסו. ורב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבדו. ורב נחמן שאל מחוק שגזבר שהפקיד ליד שולחני מעות פתוחות והוא השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. השאלה היא שרק אם הוא השתמש, לא אם רק נמסרו לו. תוספות שואלים מן הדין נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פרות יכול לחזור בו.

I was asked a few weeks ago about Leibniz and other pre-Kantian philosophers.

I was asked a few weeks ago about Leibniz and other pre-Kantian philosophers. I do not recall how it came up. I simply walked into the Na Nach Breslov beit midrash and someone asked me about this. My short answer to them was "They are not relevant". My main point was that pre_Kantian thinkers got to a certain point in the conflict between Mind and Body and it needed Kant and Hegel to come up with a kind of synthesis.

On a larger scale, my idea is this. Philosophy before Plato  was leading up to Plato and then everything after that was picking up  the pieces. (The question the pre Plato people had was "How is change possible?")
This question went up until Plotinus. Then a new problem arose: Faith and Reason. [And that in itself had a subset of a different problem free will as opposed to Divine knowledge. That went up until Aquinas.

 Then a whole new question came up with Descartes; the mind body problem. Then that went on back and forth between the people like John Locke and Spinoza and Leibniz until Kant. Since then everything has been getting trying to get a handle on Kant and Hegel.

And the relevance of all this is great as politics is downstream from Philosophy. What kind of idea people have about what is truth and justice will determine what kind of society they will live in.


[And you do not really get to skip this process by assuming you know the whole truth because of some religious text you read. The problem with that is that truth is not determined by "identity philosophy." That is to choose who has the truth based on what religious group or ethnic group they belong to. If that would be valid, then why did the Rambam make such a big deal out of the importance of Aristotle? You have to say that he did not think in terms of identity politics.]

I ought to add that in terms of the post Kantian debate I think that Leonard Nelson is unjustly ignored. To me his system [the Kant Fries School] seems important. And just to add weight that that it is a fact that Karl Gauss saw the book of Fries and praised it and David Hilbert clearly held that Leonard Nelson was on the right track. But I also do not think that this takes away from the importance of Hegel. But after Nelson I think 20th century philosophy really took a nose dive into the mud.

Kelley Ross does use the Nelson Kant approach for knowledge and Shopenhaur for Metaphysics but I am thinking that Hegel's Metaphysics might be better.

Kant and Hegel

I find the argument between Kant and Hegel to be along the lines of מחלוקת בין הצדיקים argument between the righteous/ That is I see both as being as important to figuring out what "It is all about" as Plato and Aristotle. [The idea of argument between the righteous comes from Rav Nahman and it refers to the fact that even great people seem to not be on the same page about what is important to emphasize. However there is still the problem of figuring out who is  a zakik in the first place. The problem in that is that there is a lot of sitra achra [the dark side] around that copies true tzadikim. Especially in Israel there is a lot of this problem- Rav Shach and the Gra warned about it but they seem to be universally ignored. Or perhaps it is just in the supposedly religious world that they are ignored.]

And in fact I owe a debt of gratitude to a certain school of thought of Kant based on Leonard Nelson. [That is the Kant-Fries School].

That is to say I found some of the problems in Torah thought to be almost insolvable because of two reasons. One was in understanding the basic meaning and the other problem is in practical experience.
So when I found on the Internet the school of thought of Kant Fries--that basically answered almost my questions.[That is the web site of Dr Kelley Ross from California.] However it helped also to see the essays of Dr Michael Huemer.]


There is an argument between Hegel and Kant about the dinge an sich [the thing in itself with no properties] if reason has access to it. In one way it seems that Kant has the advantage here since in his view there are two levels of reality --one in which reason can penetrate and the other in which it can not. This certainly helps when it comes to question in faith.

However the advantage of Hegel is that universals are at least accessible to reason by a process of dialectics. But when it comes to a political system I think the founding fathers of the USA were more on track.

a way to dispose of corrupt religious leaders.

Sometimes it is useful to have a way to dispose of corrupt religious leaders.

Rav Nahman of Breslov has quite a few chapters of his book [LeM] on the difficulties that stem from Torah Scholars that are demons.

The trouble with the idea of having a way of disposing of them is that thy have no authority in the first place. Once ordination was continued from Moses at Mount Sinai until about the middle of the time of the amoraim (Talmudic period). But once that authentic ordination was lost then authority reverts back to the Gemara [Talmud].
" Just like you can not add or subtract from the written Torah so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." Rambam in his letter to Yemen.

So anyone that claims ordination is a fraud in the first place. Much less to make money out of Torah makes it worse. So to dispose of these frauds really requires nothing more than simple awareness of the facts.

The phony kinds of ordination that is claimed nowadays started during the Middle Ages, but it has no legal validity. It is just a way to use Torah to make money--thus piling one lie on top of the other.

Question: Remember the thing about the earth being created from snow?  Fasten your seatbelt: Iyyov 37:6. (The Book of Job)

I just found it brought as a proof in the Midrash Rut from the Zohar Chadash 93:a. If the Rambam accepted the tradition that Iyyov was written by Moshe then it’s a pretty, uh, shtarke qasha. Moshe is as authoritative as it’s possible to get on the question.


My Answer: That midrash refers to the Big Bang. Not the actual earth. The idea is that snow contains structure a hexagon that you do not see in water or other things. That is why snow is used as the analogy. In Greek thought before R Eliezer there was an argument of what the world is made of. Water or fire etc or all four. So R Eliezer did not want to say all four but not one or the other either. Rather he found snow as being some combination of Solid Liquid Gas and Energy in a way that combined all four but in some way that was not any of the four.

But I imagine you are referring to the fact that the Rambam thought that Midrash is ridiculous. The Rambam can be wrong as I might have mentioned before. For some reason the great sages like Rav Shach and others made it an important part of learning to answer questions in the Rambam--and that is a worthy cause. Still with all that we see Rav Nahman ignored him in his list of things that one ought to learn every day.

 I was impressed with Tosphot when i first got to Far Rockaway and later learning sessions  simply reinforced that impression. Still the Rambam is a worthy Rishon but not one to put above any of the other great rishonim.

On the other hand the idea of the Rambam of a synthesis between Reason and Faith is a worthy idea and found in other Rishonim and Geonim. 
Pirkei Avot --I forget where is one place where the Rambam misunderstood the meaning of an Aramaic word. The commentaries over there mention this and they are right. Another place I mentioned is the Spheres and the Rings. The whole reason the Rings were introduced was because the Spheres did not explain the fact that Venus gets darker and lighter. So just in the course of one generation after Plato then spheres were abandoned and the Rings put in there place. yet the Rambam says the reason the Rings were introduced was because of the darkening and lightening of Venus.


I might add that the way of the Litvak yeshivas since Rav Haim of Brisk is great on the side that they dig in to find some way of reconciling the Rambam with the Talmud which is usually hard if not impossible. Yet they all do an amazing job. Rav Shach, Rav Haim, my own teachers at the Mir Rav Shmuel Berenbaum etc. Yet too much in Tosphot is forgotten about. people get to the point of almost just skimming over Tosphot without getting the ideas except for how the conclusion may of may not disagree with the Rambam. They ignore the whole reasoning.

Dr Kelley Ross and Dr Michael Huemer are coming from very different kinds of approaches. Dr Ross from German Idealism especially of Leonard Nelson and Fries. Dr Huemer from the intuitionist school {Prichard]. Still both very much against communism. And while I agree totally that communism is not very good-I also got to see  the Ukraine and started realizing things are not so simple. To me it looks like politics depends on DNA to a large degree. Capitalism just does not work automatically. But DNA is the one area that philosophy just can not deal with. that is the fact that people are different. not just individual people but also whole groups.

Sorry I can not go on but the library is closing and I do not have my own computer.

Talmud Bava Mezia 43

In the Talmud Bava Mezia there is a mishna that says that one who gives over money that is not sealed to a money changer--if the money changer loses it he is liable [The money changer is liable]. the reason is it was open so he was allowed to use it. To Rav Huna that means even if it was unavoidable accident. Rav Nahman askes on him from a braita [A kind of teaching that is from the time of the mishna but not included in the mishna]. It says if a gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over to a money changer money to guard--if he uses the money he [the gizbar] is liable the sin of trespassing meila.[The idea is the if the permission to use the moeny is what counts then here also the permission to use the funds ought to make the gizbar right away liable]
Tosphot asks on this question from the Mishna that one who sells some product and has received the money but the buyer has not yet picked up the product the seller can change his mind and renege on the deal.

Rav Shach and the Maharam [under the Maharsha] and the Maharam Shif all go into this subject.
But what I wanted to say here is that the question of Tosfot is thus: It does not seem to be any question on Rav Huna since in a case of meila or just regular buying and selling the permission to use the money does not exist. Only actual using the money counts. So also in our case of just giving over money to guard what ought to count is to make one a borrower is actual using. And permission to  use should only count as far as being considered a paid guard.

בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. משנה המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם היו פתוחים ונאבדו הוא חייב לשלם. לפי רב הונא השולחני הוא נחשב שואל ומחויב גם באונסים אבל לרב נחמן הוא רק שומר שכר. רב נחמן שואל שגזבר שמפקיד מעות אצל שולחנית אם השולחני השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. היתר תשמיש אינו מועיל לעשותו שואל אלא שומר שכר. תוספות שאול  שבמכירה המוכר שמקבל מעות אינו יכול להשתמש אתם עד שהלוקח מושך את החפץ. היינו שבמכירה זה שנמצא הכסף ביד המוכר אינו נותן לו רשות להשתמש אתו. ולכן במעילה הדין דומה שאין היתר השתמשות--ולכן מה הקושיה על רב הונא?

Rav Nahman mentions the importance of being attached to a true tzadik a few times in the LeM [ליקוטי מוהר''ן]. The trouble is well known that it is hard to know who is a true tzadik and who is a fake tzadik.
Rav Nahman himself mentions this problem in the part of the Lem about saying over stories from true tzadik. He says there that only one who can tell the difference between day and night can say over stories of true tzadikim.

This came up today because I was in the synagogue of Breslov of the Na Nach group and they were learning that particular Torah lesson in the Lem. Vol I, chapter 8 I think]..

[I ought to mention here that Rav Nahman does not contradict Rav haim fgrom Voloshin in this idea of attachment to a true tzadik. The reason is that Rav Nahman does not say the intention of one's serve is to be attached to a true tzadik (as that would constitute idolatry according to Rav Haim from Voloshin] Rather--the idea of Rav Nahman is to serve God in connection with a true tzadik.

So what is a true tzadik. To answer this I think it helps to see the idea of מחלוקת בין הצדיקים argument between tzadikim [in the Lem vol 1. chapter 5 I think].


That is there can be vast differences between what kind of service the true saints did in order to serve God. It all comes down to the question of Socrates, "What is virtue (arete)?" That is to say--even though there are difference between great people--but what is the one thread that unites them? One is the one thing in each that makes them great?

[I found the idea of Aurobindo about the danger of the intermediate zone to be helpful in this regard. Too many people think they can tell who is a tzadik by their dress or other external signs.They are not aware of the danger of the intermediate zone that can give evil people the ability to preform miracles that seem to be from the realm of holiness.]

Bava Mezia 43a. The Mishna says that the fact that one gives over some money to guard to a money changer that is not wrapped up, that means the money changer is already responsible. To Rav Huna he is a borrower. To Rav Nahman he is a paid guard.

Later Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a braita that says if gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over money to a money changer, the money changer trespasses the prohibition of {Meila} using unauthorized temple funds] if he uses the money.

The question I have at this point even before getting into the Tosphot on the page is how this relates to what Tosphot says later on on page 99a. There Rav Ami said if one gives over some object [bedek habait] to another person--as soon as he gives it over, he trespasses the prohibition. even before the other person uses it.

This relates to an essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri conserning Meila.

The Sitra Achra [Dark Side] seems to be part and parcel of the religious world.  The reason I think is some idea that Rav Nahman brings סביב רשעים יתהלכון [psalms 77]"The wicked go round about". That is,--where ever there is holines the Dark Side tries to get in. This makes it hard for me to find anywhere I can sit and learn. To some degree I feel that if people had listened to the Gra and Rav Shach this problem would not be here. But also I realize that people will often choose evil even when great tzadikim like the Gra warn correctly.

Wyat Earp and the OK Coral. I think the Clantons were trying to draw the Earps into a trap.

There are probably experts out there that know better than I. But I want to suggest that there is some aspect of the shootout at the OK Coral that I find hard to understand.
Was it so hard to find the Earps? What in the world were the Clantons and McLaurys doing around Fremont Street? They certainly were not looking for the Earps. Rather, what seems to me is that they were trying to draw the Earps into a trap. That is why one fellow came up to them while there were at Allen Street and 4th and told them the Clantons were at the OK Coral. They were hoping the Earps and Doc Holiday would walk straight to the OK Coral from where they stood,  and when their back were turned to start shooting. But in an unexpected way, the Earps instead turned up to Fremont and 4th Street and started walking down Fremont beyond the back entrance of the OK Coral, and then  they saw the Clantons standing around that empty lot besides the photography studio. [They were obviously waiting for the Earps. They certainly were not going around looking for anyone!]

This is also I think the cause of Behan to try and stop them thinking that the Clantons plans had gone haywire.

One point I would like to bring out is that the Earps were not hard to find. Vigil was the Sheriff, and his two brothers were his deputies.

[It seems clear to me that Wyat Earp suspected a trap, and thus walked up the opposite way.]

way of learning of Rav Nahman

The way of learning of Rav Nahman was to say the words and to go on. And not to do any review until one has finished the book one is learning until he or she has finished it. Then to review again and again. This comes up in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. But it is also brought in his Magnum Opus {the LeM}.
I suggest applying this to things that are beyond the general accepted Torah sessions. --To include Physics and Mathematics. The reason I say this is more or less based on the Musar book The Obligations of the Heart and the Rambam. These Rishonim saw in natural science and Metaphysics an imperative. To the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics are included in the commandments to love and fear God.
However, it is true that most people that are good in these subjects have IQs that are way beyond us regular people. So my point here is not that everyone can be a genius at these subjects-- which I realize are difficult. It is rather that everyone has access to these subjects --even though they might think that they do not. And these access is through this path of learning fast--saying the words in order as fast as possible and going on to the end of the book--and then tart again.     

[In Far Rockaway, Rav Freifeld emphasized review of every chapter 10 times,- but I found that did not work very well for me. I whittled it down to review twice of every paragraph. But when it came to math and Physics, I found the only thing that seems to work for me is this path of learning of Rav Nahman.]
[However, even with Rav Nahman, there is a place for deeper learning [as he also mentions in Conversation #76] [And the Le.M VOLUME I chapter 74]. So when I try to learn Gemara, I do try to spend a little more effort into the deeper aspects. But when it comes to Physics, I find that efforts on depth tend to take away the time I need to get the big picture. So there I tend to concentrate more of Rav Nahman's path of just saying the words and going on.]

Just for a reminder "outside wisdoms" are not books on natural science, but as the Rif [Rav Isaac Ilfasi ] and Rosh [Rabbainu Asher] explain they are books that explain the Torah in other ways besides the Sages of the Gemara.[You can find this idea of the Rif in the first mishna in chapter Helek in Sanhedrin]

It is well known that the way of counting the days of nida (woman that sees blood) for the Rambam is different than all other rishonim. The basic place that I recall shows the way of the Rishonim to be correct is Arakim 20.
The Mishna says אין פתח בטועה פחות משבעה ולא יותר מי''ז. [A woman that forgets the days of her period is not less than 7 and not more than 17]. And the Gemara goes on to explain it. The basic idea is lets says she see blood for a day. So you say that is the beginning of nida and you wait 17 more days. but even if she sees three days in a row that could be all zava or the last one could be the beginning of nida. In any case you never have more than 17. But the number goes down after 3. So each day after that she needs to count one day less. But To the Rambam this can not work. To his way the last day can always be the beginning of nida and she would need a whole 17 days.
[1-17;2-17;3-17;4-16;5-15;6-14;7-13;8-12;9-11;10-10;11-9;12-8;13-7]
The only thing I can imagine here is perhaps the Rambam simply found a different Gemara someone that to him implies that his way is correct.

The basic way of the Rishonim is that a woman that is once a zava never goes back to count nid until she has counted seven clean days This seems crytal clear in that Gemara in Arakim.
To see that the Rambam can not fit with the Gemara in Arakim take for example a woman that sees 13 days. With the Rambam the last day might be the beginning of nida. But that Gemara says she only needs then 7 clean days and then starts to count nida again. So the Rambam must have found someother place which he thought shows his way is correct.]




[The way of the Rishonim is seven days is nida [even if she sees only one day] and then mikve at the night of the start of the eight day. But if after that she sees for three straight days she is a zava and needs seven clean days. And she does not go back to nida until she has counted 7 clean days.
To the Rambam the cycle is always 7-11-7-11-7... unless she gives birth. 

I recall vaguely that the popes at the time of Joan of Arc were in a kind of precarious position. The one right before she was burned at the stake had a high ranking bishop accuse him of calumny or something like that. I forget the whole story. But in any case, the popes back then were not considered sacrosanct like a Roman tribune.

[What I mean is that, (from what I recall), a tribune could not be hurt in any kind of way. If a person even just laid a hand on a tribune, he could be killed on sight by any plebian at any time without trial. But popes apparently were not like that.]

The point is that the position of any pope was precarious unless he agreed with what the bureaucracy wanted to hear. That has been suggested as a reason that even if the popes at the time had wanted to interceded for Joan, they would not have been listened to. Popes have gained undreamed of power that they originally never had.

There is a notion of Hegel that form [essence] shines forth, not matter. The idea I realized is based on Kant that the thing in itself is not known. It is only the attributes that are known. So Hegel expands on this to mean that the reason we know forms is that they allow themselves to be known. They shine forth. But then Hegel goes on to say the form also in reflected into the thing in itself. He means to say there is a connection between the form that goes beyond their just being attached to an object.