Scientism is the faith that only what science can measure in a test tube can be real. But this seems to be highly non scientific. For science seeks to know what we do not know; not to limit what can be known. 

But how can areas beyond what can be tested by a test tube or by pure reason be known? Thus to answer this question I had to turn to Immediate Non Intuitive Knowledge (of the the Kant-Friesian School of Kelley Ross). That means knowledge that is not dependent on the senses nor on pure reason.

And this makes a lot of sense to me because I am sorry to have to admit it but it makes sense to me because of my own personal experience of faith.  So I realize that personal experience is no proof of anything, still I have to explain why I find this school of thought to be so compelling. 

And along with this I can also believe that mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia from the Middle Ages-had true mystic vision. [ Rav Abulafia had a lot of ideas that are in absolute contradiction to what the religious world thinks. And I admit I  was totally shocked when I first read his ideas in manuscript form in 1992.[This was after I had undergone difficult traumatic times in my life-so I might have been more receptive to his new approach. You might say I was no longer as sure of my ideas as I hade been before that.]  

But then how does one tell who has true vision?  For this I think you need the mediaeval formula of Faith with Reason. That is Faith may go beyond Reason but Reason still determines what is reasonable. 

So the question is how to strike a true balance between reason and faith. The problem is one without the other leads to lunacy. Thus the Litvak Yeshiva approach based on the Gra I think must be thought of as the true approach.   

mysticism based on the Zohar

 The problem with mysticism based on the Zohar is the phrase עם כל דא "even though".[עם כל דא "  is used all the time in the Zohar.]  I mean to say that the Zohar was written during the Middle Ages after that phrase עם כל זה [translated in Aramaic  עם כל דא] was invented by the Ibn Tibon family. Before then one said "even though" by אף על פי or  אף על גב. [Rav Yakov Emden in fact noticed the problem. He concluded that some parts of the Zohar were based on mystic writings that had come before that time, but a lot of it was not from R Shimon ben Yochai.

So while I have a lot of respect for the great mystics like Rav Avraham Abulafia and Rav Isaac Luria,, I do not see the Zohar as having validity at all.

If you think of a woman that sees blood once and then again between the 8th and 18th day as a Zava [who requires seven clean days] as opposed to s regular woman who sees for few days and then not again until after 30 days, then can an ocean purify her? Well this is an argument between the tenaim [sages of the Mishna].

Do you consider her as a zava? That is so to most Rishonim, but not to the Rambam who thinks there is a continuous cycle of  18. Once any girls sees even one time, the 18 cycle begins. And so any woman that sees even once might be a small zava. Then if she see three days she is a great zava who needs a flowing spring. Do rivers fed from springs count as springs? This seems to me from what I recall to be an argument between the Raavad and Rambam. [That is an argument as to the status of most rivers. To the mishna only four in Israel are not valid but all other rivers have the status of a spring.

[But if you go with most Rishonim including the Raavad most women that see blood are only nidot, not zavot so any body of natural water is Ok, e.g.,  a sea or river  

[I know I am being short here. So just for information's sake: In the book of Leviticus you see a difference between a woman who sees blood and a woman who sees blood "not in her time". The one that sees not in her time needs "living waters" to get pure. That is a spring. So what is ""Not in her time". Well the simple idea would be seeing her regular time up to seven days. That is if she sees one day or two or three etc up until seven, she simply goes into a sea or river after the seventh day [or even during the seventh day if she has already stopped seeing.] But if she sees again on three consecutive days after the seventh day, then that is "not in her time". She needs then to count seven clean days and go into a spring [or river fed from springs] and bring a sacrifice [once there will be a Temple]

 To learn fast [saying the words and going on] or slow [with review]? I had seen the fast way in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous and also in some book [בניין עולם] in Shar Yashuv. [Note1] But in Shar Yashuv itself there was [as in all yeshivot based on the Gra] an emphasis on slow painstaking review.

[There was recommended to review everything you learn ten times] 

At the time, I came up with a sort of middle path or review twice. But over the years, I have found there are places where the fast sort of learning seems to work best--I mean absolutely fast. And there are places where review is the only thing that works. 

The places where fast is the best is where review does not seem to work at all. I am sorry to admit it, but an example is higher mathematics. Places like that where review does nothing (since it is like a vertical structure), there I need to get the whole picture before I can understand even the slightest detail.

Places where review seems best are in Tosphot or books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or Rav Shach. These are places that are deep and profound, but do not depend on extensive knowledge elsewhere. That is to say--they make sense in their own place--if you spend enough time on them.

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics.

In some Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda [חובות הלבבות], Binyamin the Doctor [author of מעלות המידות] and the Rambam we find an emphasis on Physics and Meta-Physics. [And they mean these subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks as the Rambam states openly in the Introduction to the Guide.] So what is included in these? I think Physics is clear. But Metaphysics is less clear. Certainly as the Rishonim understood these include Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But what of later authors? I suggest Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson.

 [I know that there is an argument between the Kant Fries School of Leonard Nelson and Hegel, and I have no resolution to this problem. Both schools of thought have some important points.]

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics. While to Fries there is an exact limit to reason that never change, and to Hegel there is no such limit, one can see that this limit can expand. [It can be dynamic. It moves.] 

 The problem with social justice theories is when implemented result in their exact opposite. The death toll of communist's regimes in the 20th century go above 100 million..[just counting the USSR and China. That ought to put some kind of damper on the enthusiasm these theories. The proof is in the pudding.  And no matter how well thought out a theory is, if it predicts results [prosperity and peace for all] -that turn out to be contrary to its predictions--that theory is false.

But this applies to religious delusions also. The allure of the religious world is their claim of peace and justice for all which is the opposite of the truth. 

The further one gets into areas of numinous content [powerful spiritual presence] like music, art, justice, spiritual values, the less concepts of pure reason are applicable. See Kant (and the Kant-Friesian School). The issue is this there is analytic knowledge which is true by definitions; and synthetic knowledge e.g. there is a continent between Asia and Europe.. There is also a priori knowledge (known, but not by the senses) and a posteriori knowledge known by observation . So can a priori synthetic knowledge  exist? Kant shows how, but only within a certain limit. That limit is "the conditions of possible experience".So when people try to show by pure reason principles things are can not be observed by the five senses and not within the area of possible experience, then you know they are getting into an area where reason not only is invalid,  but is also destructive.]  

 It is not known if the Gra agreed with the establishment of an institution "yeshiva" as independent from the local Rav and community. {That is something like a corporation.] For the most part, all you had was the local place where people prayed in the morning and then who ever wanted to just stayed and learned there during the day.

When Rav Chaim of Voloshin asked the Gra about starting such an independent institution as a yeshiva the Gra did not answer at first. Then there are several accounts. Some say that he agreed in the end. Others say he never agreed.

To me this shows a basic ambiguity about the whole issue. Certainly, Torah was never meant to be a means to get a kollel pay check. On the other hand, I had been part of two very great Litvak yeshivot Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY.   In Shar Yashuv I learned about the great importance of reviewing everything you learn ten times.

So it is hard to know. Maybe the connection between Torah and Money nowadays has just gotten too out of hand.

[I do not know if it matters to others, but perhaps a bit of personal information might be helpful. I had a great time in Shar Yashuv and learned from Naphtali Yeager about the infinite depths of Tosphot. But after that I went to the Mir where the learning was more along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk. ] 

signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. It is customary to ignore the Gra's signature on the document of the herem but because of this ignoring the fact has caused the religious world to descend into its present state of insanity.

 The problem that Rav Nahman brings in the Le.M  [volume I chapters 12, 28] about תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים "Torah scholars that are demons" would not resonate so strongly with me if not for the fact of personal experience. The issue is there are plenty of these sort of Torah scholars that can "talk the talk" and say all the right words and verbiage, but when it comes to action, they do as much damage to us simple people as they can. I was not aware of the presence of these teachers of righteousness that are internally demons until I experienced their damage on my own self and family. And so I knock myself every day that I did not heed the warning of the Gra concerning this difficulty.

So what does this mean for other simple people? Not to avoid Torah which is holy and important. Rather to heed the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. Not because we are so religious, but rather because of self preservation.

[I wish I could walk in the path of the Gra--straight learning and keeping Torah. But at least this important point of the Gra I think should be heeded. And furthermore, even if one thinks that the herem was by mistake, it still is valid since a herem/excommunication has the same category as קונמות--נדרים vows. That is one can say about an animal "This is to be a sacrifice" and that is valid regardless of  his reasons for doing so. So it us in the case of the excommunication. It is valid no matter if people accept it or not. 

I need to do here that Rav Nahman was not included in the Herem signed by the Gra. This you can see by looking at the actual language of the document. 

It is customary to ignore the Gra's signature  on the document of the herem but because of this ignoring the fact has caused the religious world to descend into its present state of insanity.

 z62 midi file  z62 nwc

(The Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot) are what the ancient Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics.[They do not refer to any kind of mysticism]]

If you take the natural sciences as being "secular" [devoid of numinous content], then I can see why people find them as dry. But for me, the opposite is the case. I see in them the "Wisdom of God",- the hidden Torah contained in the Work of Creation.  

{This is not my original idea. Rather it is based on the fact that I noticed in the חובות לבבות Obligations of the Hearts (Gate III perek 3) and the Guide of Maimonides this idea.  See the Guide of the Rambam (Maimonides) introduction. He says what the sages called מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה (The Work of Creation and the Divine Chariot) are what the ancient Greeks called Physics and Metaphysics.[They do not refer to any kind of mysticism]] 

[See the Le.M of Rav Nahman about the hidden Torah and how it reaches even into the places far from God to call all those fallen souls back to Him.]   LeM vol II perek 12.

[I might mention that I was interested in the natural sciences when I was younger, but did not see the "numinous" content in them. So it took me  long time to start to see this aspect of things. Clearly my dad working at TRW on laser communication was intuitively aware of this, but I never heard him express it as such. And this must have come from his older brother Alex, that encouraged my Dad in this direction.]

Clearly some Rishonim disagreed with this approach, and I myself was inclined to just sit and learn Torah. However circumstances were such that I thought it wise to take the advice of the Gra, the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda. [The Gra was quoted in the translation of Euclid by one of his disciples as saying, "One will lack in knowledge of Torah a hundred times more than his lack of knowledge in the seven wisdoms.]"  כפי חסרון הידיעה בשבעת החכמות כן יחסר הידיעה בורה מאה פעמים

 

great ideas of the Gra

 One of the great ideas of the Gra is that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments put together. And you can see in the Nefesh HaChaim of his disciple Rav Chaim of Voloshin the greatness of learning Torah. So while on one hand I felt the tremendous holiness  of learning Torah, I did not appreciate the Litvak world [built on the Gra] as much as I should have. I saw the great advice of Rav Nahman and that got me off track to get involved in Breslov. So while clearly there is tremendous benefit in the books of Rav Nahman, but there is a "consciousness hook" by which I and others can get off track when we do not realize that Rav Nahman is one thing but Breslov is something else.

{I should add that I had a really great time in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY.  So I had no good reason to think the grass was greener elsewhere. But now that I know , at least I figure that I can let others know about the importance of the Gra and Rav Shach. --while still retaining a great deal of respect for Rav Nahman.

I also want to add here that it was Rav Freifeld of Shar Yashuv that told me to go to university. To him the best approach was half day of Torah and half day of university. But I did not listen because I felt I needed to be learning Torah all day at that point. (And after all what could I done in college at that point? I did not know of the method of learning of "saying the words and going on". So I I could do would have been philosophy which in the 20th century was a disaster or music.]

One of the reasons that I am impressed with the Kant-Fries School of thought is personal experience. I know that can not be used as a proof for a philosophical idea, still for me this made the idea of the Friesian School highly credible. I mean to say that Kant  tries to find a justification of the synthetic a priori by means of structures that are already placed in the mind. And thus to him, reality has to conform to the mind. If you find this doubtful, you are not alone. So the idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge made more sense. That is that there is knowledge that we know not by reason and not by the senses. And this gives the beginning axioms upon which the synthetic a priori can be built.

[I mean to say that my own belief in God is not based on reason, but can be justified by reason as we see in Kurt Godel's proof of the existence of God.  While this proof is solid, still there is always room for doubters to doubt. So for me faith comes above reason. And faith is immediate non intuitive.

[If Fries was accused of psychologism that is not really all that accurate since he was only saying we need to inspect ourselves ["know thyself"] to see the source of this faith, but not that it depends on the mind.]

And even if other things he got wrong, that is not a reason to discount what he got right. This is like what the Rambam wrote about Muslims. He wrote "If they lie about us, that does not give us a reason to lie about them."

General Grant and General Robert E. Lee

 General Grant tried to underplay the South's fighting ability. He wrote that the numbers of the Union forces counted all the axillaries. [Cooks, baggage carriers etc.] But in most  battles (before overwhelming numbers were brought against the South), the South won. [There was one exception in which General McClellan won and that gave confidence to the North.] [And I mean this only in the East. On the Western Front, the Union had total victory, and took Kansas and Tennessee.]And the very idea that the North was fighting for what was right seems to contradict both the Old Testament  and the New. [note 1]

I mean to liberate slaves who would afterwards turn to be Trojan horses and continue to undermine the Republic. That was wrong. But to keep the Union together, that very well might have been right as General Sherman said that with that break up, the states would turn out to be like Mexico fighting one with the other to the ruin of all. [As was in fact the case before the Constitution was signed]

So they were fighting for morality based on "reason". But if you want morality based on reason you can come up with systems that look good on paper (like Marxism), but end up enslaving the entire population where it is employed--and murdering a high percentage of its own population. [note 2]

[note 1] There are rules about how a slave is to be treated. But that does not mean the institution is wrong. It is well known hat even a gentile slave must be treated as well as the master. The law is that if the master has only one pillow, he must give it to the slave. The only thing the slave must d is to work, not to suffer.

[note 2] I hope it is clear that Reason and Revelation is what is necessary. I am only criticizing the idea that reason alone can bring to objective morality. Reason alone can not bring to objective morality since it is the most flawed of all human perceptions. But nor is Revelation sufficient since it is just as subject to perversions as any other human institution. Only with Reason with Revelation is there any chance of coming to objective morality.  

שבועות כ''ב ע''א. הגמרא נותן הסבר אחד לברייתא. ברייתא זו מובאת כשאלה על רב פפא שאמר נדר אינו צריך שיעור (מידה). הברייתא עצמה אומרת את זה: "שני קונמות מצטרפים, שתי שבועות אינן מצטרפות." (שני נדרים מצטרפים. שני שבועות לא.) [כלומר שאם אוסר לעצמו חצי גודל (של כזית) של תאנה וחצי גודל של תפוח, מצטרפים שני הגדלים הללו, אפילו אם הוא אסר כל אחד בנדר נפרד. הגמרא שואלת איך מצטרפים שני נדרים? לך לכאן ולא מספיק. לך לשם ואין מספיק. [כדי לעבור על האיסור צריך לעבור על כל שיעור של כזית). תשובה: הוא אסר את שניהם על ידי נדר אחד. לאחר מכן מביא הגמרא אמירה של רבינא לענות על השאלה על רב פפא. התשובה היא רב פפא מדבר על מכות, ברייתא מדבר על מעילה. בשלב זה הגמרא גורסת שהחכמים מחזיקים יש מעילה בנדרים. אבל לפני נקודה זו, הגמרא חשב שהחכמים מחזיקים אין מעילה בנדרים. אז עכשיו אנחנו מגיעים לרב משה בן מיימון ולרב''ד. הרמב''ם כותב אם אוסר לעצמו חצי גודל (שיעור) תאנה וחצי גודל (שיעור) פרי אחר אפילו בשני נדרים נפרדים, הם מצטרפים לעשות גודל שלם. שואל הרב''ד זה בניגוד לגמרא הנ"ל שאומר שרק כשעושים נדר אחד לאסור שני חצאי גדלים (שיעורים) אז מצטרפים. לא עם שני נדרים. ואז רב שך אומר שהרמב''ם גורס שאחרי אמירת רבינא, הגמרא כבר לא צריך את התשובה הראשונה ההיא. שהרי לפני אמירת רבינא חשבה הגמרא שיש רק מלקות לנדרים, לא מעילה. אז הברייתא דיברה רק על קבלת מכות. ובקבלת מכות רק עצם העבירה על דברי הנדרים משנה. אז שני נדרים נפרדים לא יצטרפו. אבל אחרי רבינא אין צורך בתשובה זו. כדי לעבור על האיסור מעילה, יתחברו שני גדלים נפרדים כמו שתי חתיכות נפרדות כמו כל מאכל אסור. השאלה שלי בשלב זה היא שזה תקף רק לנדר שבו אומרים "האוכל הזה אסור לי כמו קרבן". זה המקרה היחיד בו מעילה חלה על פי רב משה בו מיימון. והרי זה הרמב''ם כאן שרב שך נותן עליו תשובה. אבל אם אומר "אוכל זה אסור לי" שאין בו מעילה. אם כן מדוע כותב הרמב''ם שני חצאי גדלים שאסורים בשני נדרים מצטרפים? זה אמור להיות המקרה רק אם כל נדר מסתיים ב"כמו קרבן

הייתי רוצה להביא פה כמה הוכחות שהרמב''ם מחזיק שיש מעילה בנדרים רק כאשר אומרים זה אסור לי כמו קרבן אבל אין לי כח כשעת. אבל אני מקווה שהשם יתן לי כח אחר כך להביא את הראיות האלו

  I was at the sea shore again today pondering רב שך. The issue is this.  שבועות כ''ב ע''א. The גמרא gives one explanation of a ברייתא. This ברייתא is brought as a question on רב פפא who said a vow does not need a size. The ברייתא itself says this שני קונמות מצטרפים שתי שבועות אינן מצטרפות. Two נדרים are joined. Two שבועות are not. [That means to say that if one forbids to himself a half size (of a כזית) of a fig and a half size of an apple, these two sizes are joined, even if he אסר each by a separate נדר. The גמרא asks how are two נדרים joined?  Go here and there is not enough. Go there and there is not enough. [To transgress the prohibition, one needs to transgress the whole amount of a כזית). Answer: he forbade both by one נדר. After this the גמרא brings a statement of רבינא to answer the question on רב פפא. The answer is רב פפא is talking about מכות, the ברייתא is talking about מעילה. At this point the גמרא is holding that the חכמים hold there is מעילה with נדרים. But before this point the גמרא thought the חכמים hold there is no מעילה with נדרים. So now we come to רב משה בן מיימון and the ראב''ד. The רמב''ם writes if one forbids to himself a half size of a fig and half size of another fruit  even with two separate vows, they are joined to make a whole size. The ראב''ד asks this is in contradiction to the above mentioned גמרא that says only when one makes one נדר to forbid two half sizes are they then joined. Not with two נדרים. Then רב שך says that the רמב''ם hold that after the statement of רבינא, the גמרא no longer needs that first answer. For before the statement of רבינא, the גמרא thought there is only מלקות for נדרים, not מעילה. So the ברייתא was only talking about getting מכות. And in getting מכות, only the fact of transgressing the words of the נדרים matter. So two separate נדרים would not be joined. But after רבינא there is no need for this answer. To transgress the איסור מעילה, two separate sizes would be joined just like two separate pieces of any forbidden food. My question at this point is this only applies to a נדר where one says, "This food is forbidden to me like a קרבן." That is the only case where מעילה applies according to the רב משה בו מיימון. And after all it is the רמב''ם here that רב שך is giving an answer for. But if one says, "This food is forbidden to me" that does not have מעילה. So then why does the רמב''ם write two half sizes that are forbidden by two vows  are joined? That should only be the case if each vow ended with "like a קרבן."

(I am cold and tired, so I ask you to take my word for it that Meila applies to nedarim only when he says "like a sacrifice." --I mean this is the Rambam's opinion. Not other rishonim.. But after all, it is the Rambam that Rav Shach is trying to give an answer for. 

pondering Rav Shach.

 I was at the sea shore again today pondering Rav Shach. The issue is this. Shavuot page 22 side a. The gemara gives one explanation of a Braita. This braita is brought as a question on Rav papa who said a vow does not need a size. The Braita itself says this שני קונמות מצטרפים שתי שבועות אינן מצטרפות. Two vows are joined. Two oaths are not. [That means to say that if one forbids to himself a half size (of a kezait) of a fig and a half size of an apple these two sizes are joined even if he forbid each by a separate vow, The Gemara asks how are two nedarim joined?  Go here and there is not enough. Go there and there is not enough. [To transgress the prohibition, one needs to transgress the whole amount of a kezait). Answer: he forbade both by one vow. After this the gemara brings a statement of Ravina to answer the question on Rav Papa.The answer is Rav Papa is talking about lashes, the braita is talking about meila. At this point the gemara is holding that the sages hold there is meila with nedarim. But before this point the gemara thought the sages hold there is no meila with nedarim. [Meila means transgressing. This is the word used to for the case where one uses an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice. For this prohibition there is a guilt offering. The point here is that there is an alternate opinion of R. Meir that there is no meila with nedarim. So what does this mean? It means that if one says this piece of bread is forbidden to me like a sacrifice and then he goes ahead and eats it anyway, he has to bring a guilt offering. This fact is not well known because  you do not see this subject much in tractate Nedarim. It actually comes up in tractate Shavuot 

So now we come to Rav Moshe ben Maimon [Rambam] and the Raavad. Rav Moshe writes if one forbids to himself a half size of a fig and half size of another fruit  even with two separate vows, they are joined to make a whole size. The Raavad asks this is in contradiction to the above mentioned gemara that says only when one makes one vow to forbid two half sizes are they then joined Not with two vows. 

Rav Shach says that Rav Moshe ben Maimon [Rambam] holds that after the statement of Ravina, the gemara no longer needs that first answer. For before the statement of Ravina, the gemara thought there is only lashes for nedarim not meila. So the Braita was only talking about getting lashes. And in getting lashes only the fact of transgressing the words of the vows matter. So two separate vows would not be joined. But after Ravina there is no need for this answer. To transgress the isur or meila two separate sizes would be joined just like two separate pieces of any forbidden food.

My question at this point is this only applies to a neder where one says "This food is forbidden to me like a sacrifice." That is the only case where meila applies according to the Rambam. And after all it is the Rambam here that Rav Shach is giving an answer for. But if one says simple "This food is forbidden to me" that does not have meila. So then why does the Rambam write two half sizes that are forbidden by two vows  are joined? That should only be the case if each vow ended with "like a sacrifice."

 So I do not have energy this minute to show that Rav Moshe holds that only when one says like a sacrifice does the prohibition of meila apply. But in the meantime I ask you to belieeve me that this is in fact the opinion of the Rav Moshe [Rambam] 

By combining these two systems even a block of wood could become a rocket scientist.

 I believe lots of people would learn Physics and Mathematics if only they knew how. This would obviously destroy the the pseudo sciences that fill the grievance studies departments of universities.

People that could learn real knowledge would run away from what they intuitively know is false.

So then how could people learn these subjects that are hard? By Iyun and bekiut. By fast learning half of the time--saying the words of the text, and going on. The other half of the time by intense review. To say over each paragraph or chapter that one learns ten times.  By combining these two systems, even a block of wood could become a rocket scientist.

But this takes time. It means every day to spend time on this--even a short amount of time. But one must be consistent to do this every day over years. Then eventually one will understand.

The Social Studies departments and so called Humanities are failures and should be shuddered up.

 The government in the USA has always bounced back and forth around a middle point. It tends towards the middle. Thus during the Civil War it went from Jeffersonian  to Federal Authority of Hamiltonian.

Thus it sees to me to be the case today. To paint it as radical communism or Right seems to be inaccurate,.

This is characteristic of the England where the powers of king or lords went back and forth with the people as the arbitrators. This is unlike systems where only the rule of the emperor mattered. I.e. this type of balanced system is characteristic of Anglo Saxon DNA.

So the question is can a system born from English DNA absorb foreign DNA? Or how much is too much? My grandparents came over from the Old Country at a time when the USA I think was free--not "socialist". Would they come over now? I am not sure. Certainly they would never have let my parents or me in a public school with the garbage they are teaching nowadays.

So while all these  are important issues and questions that are unresolved, I think one thing is clear. Allan Bloom was right. {Closing of the American Mind.} The Social Studies departments and so called Humanities are failures and should be shuddered up.

 The path of the Gra is learning "beiyun" (in depth). To me it seems clear that learning in depth and review are related. Thus I heard in Shar Yashuv the importance of reviewing every chapter ten times.

And I took this advice with me when I went to the Mir in NY. [Doing each Tosphot that many times I found bogged me down, so I settled on doing each Tosphot twice, and the Pnei Yehoshua (a commentary on the Gemara ) ten or more times. The Maharsha I forget how many times I would review it.]

And I believe that this can be very helpful when it comes to doing Math and Physics also. However because of my late start in math and Physics, I decided to do the fast sort of learning [saying the words and going on] until I could get up to speed with the current issues in Physics and Mathematics. [String Theory, and the vast array of subjects coming after Algebraic Topology.]

My son, Izhak, definitely held with learning beiyun [in depth], and the way I see this is that in depth is not different from fast learning except in the amount of review.

 Before Kant, John Locke and Hume thought pure reason can only know analytic ideas--things that are contained in the definitions. [To the empiricists the only real knowledge is what can be verified by observation. ] Kant expanded the areas of what can be known.  He said reason can know synthetic a priori-[i.e. universals, like causality]-but only within the conditions of possibity of experience. Jacob Fries expanded that further. To Fries, God, and the soul are areas where knowledge is possible, but not by reason, rather by a sort of knowledge that is not reason nor based on sense perception.

[I think that both Kant and the Friesian School of Kelley Ross have tremendous points, but I can not tell if the truth is only in one camp or the other.

Rav Nahman in the Le/M [I think in the left out portions that were later added back in] says when God created the world the midot like wisdom would expand indefinitely. Then God set a limit to them. 

Rav Nahman wrote this specifically about wisdom [Reason]. This goes along with Jacob Fries that we have knowledge beyond conditions of possibility of experience [i.e. Faith.] but this knowledge is not by reason. 

 The Morality Quotient.  In secular society it is thought that the Bell Curve is invalid. When people are stupid, that is thought to have nothing to do with violence. To some degree this is correct. There is also the Morality Curve. Someone can be dumb, but highly moral. And that morality can even bring one to higher intelligence than even natural IQ. "Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom" [Proverbs]

This you can see in many very intelligent women that after they get divorced spend the rest of their lives trying to hurt their ex husbands. They ate blissfully uncaring the traumatic effect this has on their children whom they ruin by their constant lashon hara [slander.] They could not care less if they ruin their children --just as long as they get to hurt their ex-husbands.

 Where Hegel disagrees with Jacob Fries is in the area beyond science. That is--the area beyond what can be tested experimentally and verified in the laboratory. The question is metaphysics.  How to get to it? [How to get to an area that is liable to be tested experimentally?] [Both Hegel and Fries agree that it is possible to get to.] To Fries one can get to this area by means of immediate non-intuitive knowledge. A sort of knowledge that does not depend on reason nor on sense perception. To Hegel, one gets to this area of knowledge by reason itself.

[To Kant only also areas beyond  experiment are available  to human knowledge, bur only those within the conditions of possiblility of experience. []Eg., God the soul, morality, etc.] But to Kant and Fries even areas beyond the conditions of possible experience are open. To Fries that is by immediate non intuitive knowledge. To Hegel it is by Reason itself. 

From where do you see this. From Hegel's own idea of what the Phenomenology is about. It is a Wissenschaft a science--not in the sense of natural science but science of what is beyond that. 

 You do not really know what is going on in the souls of other men. What do people gain by learning Torah in the kollel system? Sex--(i.e. a shiduch), money as their salary for learning Torah, power over others when what they want they claim is the authority of the Torah. Who is to say that they do not want these these things? Maybe they do. And if they do then that is Torah shelo lishma, Torah not for its own sake. And on Torah  not for  own sake we learn יערוף כמטר לקחי לשון הריגה "My teaching flows like rain" Flows is the same verb root as "kills". I.e., my teaching kills those who are not worthy. That means not only those that learn Torah not for its own sake but also those that listen to them.

 

 The essential flaw in China is the lack of people's confidence in Communism and totalitarian structures of government. That is to say, it is not external measures or lack of power and genius on the part of China that is the Achilles heel. Rather the very fact that Communism is not believable to the average man. Tell to the average guy that whatever he owns is theft and exploitation. Most will not believe that.

This was the reason for the fall of the USSR. Not from external pressure, but from simple lack of confidence in a 19th century variation of some obscure economic theory. '

[Das Capital by Marx would sit in book stores in the USSR for years collecting thick layers of dust.]

Robert E Lee

 I think the best way to understand the Civil War is by the principle of separation of powers of Montesquieu. I mean to say that even though this principle is used in understanding of the separate branches of government (Executive Judicial, Legislative), I think the exact same principle applies to why the founding fathers gave only limited powers to the Federal government and all other powers were reserved for the States.

So they saw the States as essentially in the same sort of category as a separate branch of government that had all other powers that were not specifically given to the Congress or the other branches of Federal government.

So the question was  if the Federal government was given in the Constitution the power to prevent a state from leaving the Union. Since it would be hard to make such a case, Robert E Lee concluded that the South was right.

[I have heard other arguments but they do not seem to carry much weight. especially once the South a]saw that the North was violating the Supreme Court's ruling about runaway slaves, it was clear the north was actively violating the Constitution.]

Heisenberg when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value.

Heisenberg.  There was a very influential thesis by Paul Rose that Heisenberg tried to help the Nazis get the A Bomb. I mentioned before that I think that clearly he did the opposite. This paper by Carl Meyer shows in detail what I have thought for a long time--that Heisenberg easily could work out how much U235 was needed, and yet always over estimated it in conversations to show that it was impossible for the Germans to get that much. [Han complained to him that his estimates varied from 50 kilos to 2 tons.] Albert Speer specifically asked Heisenberg about it and came away saying the Heisenberg convinced him that it was impossible.[Besides all this, it ought to be noted that the paper by Paul Rose has a flawed analysis of how to get to the critical mass. It was not written by an expert in atomic fission.] 

Besides that, in his 1939 paper, he ignored the actual question that was asked to him "If it is possible to make a bomb out of Uranium?" Instead, he spent the entire paper discussing making a nuclear reactor to create energy. [He did mention twice the idea of explosives in his 41 page paper- with no approximations, nor math. He just said pure U-235 would be needed for that.]

But at Farm Hall, when asked how much was needed? He gave a lecture on Aug 14 1945 and came up with the 6.2 square centimeters value. I.e. when he really wanted to know, he could easily work out the value. When he did not want to know, and wanted to discourage others, he came up with fanatic amounts that were impossible to get.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/02/08/heisenberg-in-copenhagen-an-exchange/

 

 Happily the Covid hoax is is getting exposed in Australia and I hope the rest of the Western world will soon follow. Of course the purpose was never to save people from a case of a mild flu, but rather to get them to take the vaccine in order to lower the white  population.\

However if people had taken the advice of Rav Nahman who warned about the medical profession they might have been saved from the hoax. Also  my mother told me many times, never to take any drug that has not been on the market for at least fifty years.

 Even though I feel the herem of the Gra is still valid, I think that if you see the actual language of the doc shows that Rav Nahman was not included.  But I can still see some of the flaws in Breslov. Rav Nachman is one thing and Breslov is something else. In fact you can see in almost any Breslov group, group traits which are shared traits among all Brelov, whether new comers or Breslov of several generations.

And it just not work well with being in the context of the straight Torah approach of the Gra. 

Imean that within the context of a litvak yeshiva and Musar, the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman ae vary valuable. But when people take him by himself and the rest of Torah as a footnote, then it seems to have some problems.

The point that is important to see is that there is a basic set of values of Torah --good midot as defined by Torah itself, learning Torah, fear of God which come into reality in the Litvak yeshiva. You might find some great advice in Rav Nahman about other issues, but this basic set of values tends to be lackinh anywhere except in the context of the those that follow the Gra 

Musar movement to gain Fear of God. [Musar I should make clear is not the Gemara, but it contains the teachings of the Gemara as related to Fear of God and being a mensch--i.e. having good midot character.]

In the Musar movement it is thought that the way to gain Fear of God is by learning Musar. And this has always seemed to me to be a weak plea. Where do you see such a thing in the books of Musar of the Rishonim? No where. Just the opposite, they all repeat the claim to contemplate the amazing works of God," is what brings to fear of God. And what is this contemplation according to the Rambam in the Guide and Mishna Torah? Learning Physics and Metaphysics as these subjects were understood by the ancient Greeks.   

But you have to piece this together from various places in the Guide. In one place he equates learning the Work of Creation (Physics) with attaining Fear of God. And learning the work of the Divine Chariot [Metaphysics] with Attaining Love of God. But it is in the introduction that he explains that what the sages called "the Work of Creation" is Physics as learned by the ancient Greeks. [Just that that knowledge was lost from Israel he explains.] And "The Divine Chariot" is Metaphysics as learnt by the Greeks. [This at least refers to the set of books of Aristotle called the Metaphysics.]

I admit my own studies in these directions have taken a hit. By the time I got around to step into the waters of Physics and Metaphysics my time and energy were depleted. [Not even to mention the fact that to really get into Physics, it helps to have a high I.Q., which I do not have. But that is not to say that a high I.Q. is the only way. The better way is through Fear of God which helps as the verse says, "The Beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord." But then we have gone in a circle --since as mentioned above, learning Physics is the path to Fear of God. So in the long run, we have to conclude that Rav Israel Salanter was right-that even to get the foot into the door of Fear of God is by Musar.--the books about being a mensch, having good midot and fear of God authored by the Rishonim.I should add that the main Musar book is the Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda but that translation by Ibn Tibon is hard. Still it is worth the effort.

Intellectuals of social studies departments and and the religious world denigrate STEM because they want the power and prestige that comes to physicists and mathematicians

Critical Race Theory is supposed to sound scientific. Something like "The Theory of Relativity." So the people that are teaching "critical race theory" are supposed to be on the same intellectual plane as Nuclear Scientists.https://www.blogger.com/blog/stats/week/7094454024638111815

 

But this is just one example of a much wider phenomenon: "Physics Jealousy" People that want the same prestige and power that comes to physicists and mathematicians, but they can not get it. (This includes the religious world.) So they make up some system by which they can denigrate the natural sciences and prop up their own garbage. 

It is unreasonable to imagine that intellectuals of the social social studies departments who debates mean nothing to anyone [including themselves' do not desire power.  Just the opposite. It is all about power.

students of the 60's

 The students of the 60's themselves were influenced by the Frankfurt School. Their books were the popular books of the 60’s like The One Dimensional Man. They thought if one is not a Marxist, then he is a Nazi. They said everyone and all society of the USA, unless they are radical Marxists, then they are Nazis. [They came from Weimer Germany where such a world view was true.] But not in the USA. For in the USA there was and still is a Middle.

It is incongruous to think of Sunny Southern California as Nazism in disguise.

So the lesson is: most of what passes today as "Torah" is not authentic

 I was thinking about Shar Yashuv today and it occurred to me that Rav Freifeld had a tremendous insight for how to make a yeshiva that would help new comers understand authentic Torah. That is to leave out the fluff. To get people into authentic learning of Gemara and Tosphot as soon as possible. 

And further it occurred to me that great insight of the Rambam that just like one can not add to the prophets so can one not add to the actual Oral Law--the two Talmuds, the Midrashei Halacha and Midrashei Agada,

So while the commentaries are valuable in so far as they are the process of learning and understanding Torah, they still are not the actual Torah which is only what is the actual books handed down by the sages of the Mishna and Gemara.

So the lesson is: most of what passes today as "Torah" is not authentic

Critical race theory is pseudo science and just a tool for blacks to destroy the white race.

 Karl popper's idea here makes sense. He approached Adler and asked how does he know his psychological theory to be true? The answer: I have many clinical cases which show it to be true. Popper answered: Then if you would have one more case that would be another proof. Then it occurred to him that real science can only be that which can be disproven. Thus in the case brought here CRT, the same idea is applicable. People start out with an axiom [that all whites are racists] that no amount of evidence will ever be able to refute. So CRT is pseudo science, since it can not be disproven by any conceivable experiment.

If people would learn authentic science  by the way of Rav Nahman (--i.e., saying the words and going on,-)they would never be fooled by pseudo science. The only reason people do not do this already is that they have no faith in themselves. They think because they do not understand complex Mathematics at first glance, that means that they can not understand it. But that is simply short sighted small mindedness. All they need to know is that by saying the words, eventually the understanding enters into one in the subterranean lays of the mind and soul.

So how did American curriculum get lost in mud?  American curriculum was a lot better in the old days–the three R’s Reading Writing, and Arithmetic. And the Sputnik came along and there was an extra emphasis on STEM in society. But somewhere along the lines some agenda seeped in from somewhere. I heard the suggestion that it all came from the Frankfurt School and the Fabian Society. These were those that came from Weimer Germany. They thought if people were not extreme Left Communist, then they were in secret really Nazis. 

Critical Race Theory is just away for blacks to destroy the white race.

repeating every chapter of Gemara ten times.

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman  76. is brought the system of learning of saying the words of what you are studying as fast as possible and to go on. Review in this method only applies after one has finished the book completely.

It seems that this method can be applied to the hard sciences also--or at least that is what I have tried to do or myself.

But I wanted to mention that hearing and learning from an expert is also important.  

I have mentioned this before in regard to Shar Yashuv and the Mir Yeshiva in NY--where, thank God, I found grace in God's eyes to grant to me to learn from gedolei Torah [great sages in Torah] R. Naphtali Yeager, R. Shmuel Berenbaum, and later in Uman with David Bronson.

Still I should add that one also needs an depth session. I heard from Rav Freifeld the idea of repeating every chapter of Gemara ten times. And in fact later at the Mir I used to repeat every Pnei Yehoshua at least ten times. This system of learning of lots of review I feel is very important --but only when it is possible. Sometimes you realize that no matter how much you review, it will not help and just bog you down, But there are times when lots of review can be extremely important. [The idea of review I found very helpful when I was at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU doing Physics.]]

In movies, it is often the father who is the evil jerk. In Western Society to look down on one's parents is thought to be a good thing. 

That does not fit with  "Honor your father and your mother."

So sometimes to do the right thing, one has to go against society 

[In this regard I want to mention that while I was at the Mir Yeshiva in NY I got the idea about the centrality of  good character ("midot tovot") in Torah. And that certainly was exactly what my parents were telling to be "a mensch".]

 And I must add that by not walking in the path of ones parents, one is certainly not honoring them. 

 Even though "meila" מעילה  does not seem to have wide application because meila is associated with sacrifices. still it is applicable when it comes to nedarim (vows) and herem. (excommunication). [Meila is using a something that has been dedicated to the Temple for personal use.]  

This is the subject of an argument between the sages and R. Meir in the Mishna, but the law is like the sages that meila does apply to nedarim and Herem.

 The herem that the Gra signed is still applicable. And one that transgress it would have the law of meila applied. So what is that law? E.g if one has an animal dedicated to be a sacrifice, and then uses it to plow. He has to bring a guilt offering and pay to the Temple the amount that that animal is worth plus a fourth. [It is called a "fifth" but it means a fourth. That is a fourth of the whole value added to the whole makes five parts.] 

That is to say: there is no benefit that can be derived by ignoring the Gra. Like the Gra noted that he is hinted to in the Torah in the verse אבן שלמה יהיה לך --ראשי תיבות אליהו בן שלמה You must have a perfect measure. The first letters are the same letters as Eliyahy ben Shelomo. [This goes in accord with the idea of the Gra that everything and everyone is hinted to in the Torah.] 

The hint that I noted here is אבן שלמה יהיה לך = אליהו בן שלמה יהיה לך   To follow the path of the Gra.

Religious fanaticism

 Religious fanaticism is probably not the best approach. But neither is secular fanaticism. After all Cambodia under  the communist regime of the Khmer Rouge  was not exactly a shinning example of enlightened leadership.

 This is why one needs the mediaeval approach of synthesizing reason with faith.

Religious fanaticism however is worse than secular since it is decayed holiness and so has more power to cause damage. 

 The Rambam holds the Atlantic ocean and all rivers can not be used for the Red Heifer. [Beginning of Laws of the Red Heifer.] [note 1] The Raavad asks why does the Rambam abandon the Mishna and go to the Tosephta? After all the Mishna only invalidates  four rivers in Israel.(The Tosephta invalidates all rivers.)

Rav Shach explains the Rambam is going with the idea of the Gemara that all rivers receive from the Atlantic. 

This all for me was a bit of a surprise because I thought all rivers are fed from springs. Well that is apparently the argument here.

That means the Tosephta is holding that all rivers have a category of a "collection of rain water" and not a spring.

Bu this still leaves me wondering why the Mishna only invalidates four rivers in Israel. Obviously the Mishna holds that all rivers [besides those four] in fact have a category of a spring. The point of the Raavvad still looks valid.

[note 1] The ashes of the Red Heifer are put onto "living waters" in order to be sprinkled on someone who has touched a dead person. That is a requirement before that person can come into the Temple or eat of the sacrifices.

I was really in great need to learn authentic Torah. So I really had to get to the Mir and Shar Yashuv in New York.

 I was really in great need to learn authentic Torah. So I really had to get to the Mir and Shar Yashuv in New York. But because of that I ignored the other requirement of "Torah with Derech Eretz." [That is to say,- even against the advice of Rav Shelomo Freifeld (of Shar Yashuv), I did nor want to go to university at that stage. I felt, the only way I was going to get to any level of understanding of Torah what so ever, would be by spending every waking minute on it. Only later did I go to the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.]  And even after all that,-even sitting in the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, [of the Mir] I still never really got the idea until I learned with David Bronson. [To him, getting into the depths of the Gemara comes naturally like a fish in water.] Finally at that point I started getting the idea.

 Rav Nahman was suspicious of the medical profession. See the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 50. So just based on that, I think it is best to not to take cures or "vaccines" if you are not sick. And even when something is wrong, one needs to be careful. At least I noticed in Uman that doctors were very careful to never try new experimental stuff. But elsewhere, I would refrain from doctors. They just have too many new toys that they are just dying to try out on us.

 The way you count days of nida [seeing blood in normal time] and ziva [seeing blood in not normal time] is a point of disagreement between the Rishonim against the Rambam. The Rishonim hold seven of nida and then if more than seven then ziva. But the Rambam has this sort of approach which seems impossible to stick to. In his approach days of nida start when the girl first sees blood and then continues according to the order 7-11,7-11, 7-11, etc. [So if she see one day and then sees on day 30. Well to the Rambam that is ziva.] So let's say you have a girl 18 years old who clearly has not been keeping track. So any blood she sees could easily be ziva. [And even if she has tried to keep track,- well so what? With five colors of blood that are unclean and five that are clean  who can tell when she actually saw something unclean?

What I think is this: the best thing is to go with the simple approach of the Rishonim (e.g. Ramban/Nahmanides) that when she sees that is the beginning of nida. Then go to a river or sea on the seventh day and then at night she is clean. [Only in the rare case of seeing for more than seven days does the issue of Ziva come into play. Then if she sees for three consecutive days that is a zava. Then she would need to count seven clean days, and find a spring. 

The Third Friesian School

 I think the ideas of Dr. Kelley Ross ought to be thought of as a third Friesian School. Not like the first of Apelt. Not like the second [called the New Friesian School] of Leonard Nelson. For his ideas are based a lot on a synthesis of thinkers from Kant, Fries, Nelson, but also Otto, Popper, and Schopenhauer.  

I mean to say that it only takes a brief look into Fries himself to see his antiquated anti-atomism or Nelson to see his fight against Special Relativity. [And that itself led to Reichenbach and the whole Berlin School going off into other directions which were even more flawed.]

{Not that I can see everything like Dr. Ross. I just can not see the critique on Hegel. Even recently the idea of Hegel's seeing the importance of individualism was brought to my attention in Cunningham's PhD thesis a century ago. {There he brings Hegel' idea that Substance and the State are the Thesis and anti Thesis while the Individualism is the Synthesis.]

And I think that Dr. Ross mainly does not like the fact that Marxists used Hegel to prop up their system. I mean to say that Dr. Ross does not like the fact that the Left are always out to get America. You can see this by the fact that they always find fault in everything that the USA stands for and has ever done. So the fact that they used Hegel implies blame on Hegel. But I think they just misused Hegel. Abusus non tollit usum. Abuse does not cancel use.

[And when it comes to internal strife, there is a sort of calming influence of Communism to get people to give up fighting and settle down to an authoritarian regime. But the trouble begins when they try to take down democratic systems.

To see hints in things is an important principle. In the LeM of Rav Nahman it is brought that God minimizes Himself to send hints to a person in things that happen to him. This might be applied wrongly, but it is a an important that can show one what he is doing wrong. You might notice, for example, that things are not going as well for you as you had thought. This is because in the very things that are going wrong, there is hidden a message. Perhaps to cease and  desist doing something you thought was a great mitzvah? 

Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar.

 On Shabat I noticed  the chapter in Job [circa 25 or around there] that discusses the question "Where is  wisdom to be found.?" Then it goes through a long list of all the places and approaches that do not work. The depths say it is not in them. Not the sea or land or heavens. It seems clear that even all the efforts that one might expend on finding wisdom, nothing works--until finally at the very end of that chapter one (and only one) way is found. That is Fear of God.  "Fear of God is Wisdom."

So you see the idea of Rav Israel Salanter about learning Musar. I.e., the books that show how to come to authentic fear of God.   

The benefit of this is according to Job is that it brings one to true wisdom.

[If only I would merit to this!! I spent a good deal of time while at the Mir in New York (outside of the regular sedarim (sessions of learning which were five hours in the morning and four hours in the afternoon.). But still I found time to go through a lot of the basic group of Musar books. [The classical mediaeval  five or six plus some  of the achronim[authorities after Rav Joseph Karo]]. I can say that this definitely helped me in many ways. 

[So what makes sense to me is to have yeshivot that walk in the path of Musar and the Gra.]

[I might mention that Musar sessions in yeshivot are short. In my opinion it would be better to have the original time period of forty minutes after the morning session of gemara until mincha. [i.e. Gemara until 130 P.M., then musar for 40 minutes. ] Then 30 minutes before maariv [i.e. Gemara fast learning from 4 P.M. until 8P.M. the 30 minutes of Musar.]

[Job clearly hold taking Diversity Studies does not help to come to wisdom. But further than that, he is saying all the other ideas that one might think help are delusions.]

 z60 midi file

 Sandra Lehmann (a Ph.D student at Hebrew U ) once told me that, "There is something odd about the study of philosophy in that it seems to take common sense away from people." That must be the reason even brilliant people after doing philosophy come up with really odd stuff. 

However I realize that philosophy is important in terms of using reason to examine ones' beliefs. It is important to have an over view of everything.. One must have some sort of answer to the question: What is it all about? You do not get tht from the natural sciences. But in this exact area that is where philosophy and the social sciences have failed measurably. So what I think is that Kant and Hegel are important. But I would also like to mention some modern people that have some clear vision in an age when vision is gone.

Kelley Ross I think is the best , but also there is Michael Huemer.

Lieutenant Simon

Lieutenant Simon was the person that organized the rescue of the people working in Iran [for Ross Perot] at the time of the revolution. And he was successful. [While the attempt of the US government to rescue its people there failed.] What was the secret of Lieutenant Simon? Reconnaissance. Always check it out before you jump in. 

One of the advantages that I gained in Shar Yashuv and later the Mir in NY was listening from people that knew Torah very well. [Naftali Yeager, Shmuel Berenbaum]. I have suspected that it is impossible to come to understand "how to learn " without receiving it from someone that knows.

And even after all that I still never really got the idea until years later I began to learn with David Bronson and then seeing this same sort of deep learning and then it finally started to sink unto me what it is all about.

I mean to say that there have been self taught people like Abraham Lincoln, but I wonder how far that can go? 

Maybe if Abraham Lincoln had gone to university, and did not have to rely only on self taught learning, maybe he would have realized that it was the North that was the rebel. In the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers there can not be anything more clear than the fact that the Federal Government has only enumerated powers things stated openly that the Constitution grants to the Federal Government. In any case, I sometimes think that anyone could get the iea just by learning a lot of Tosphot, Rav Chaim of Brisk, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Other times it seems that one needs to listen to a teacher that knows all this.

Torah is not a cult of personality.

 Torah is not a cult of personality. It is all about devotion to God. Not to any person. This aspect is very clear in secular Jews where there is no emphasis on any person at all. Even if you might complain that they are less strict in some rituals, still in this major, essential aspect of Torah they excel. 

The other point is that Torah is about good midot [good character]. In this area  you also see secular Jews excel. However this aspect was in fact rightfully emphasized by Rav Israel Salanter.

Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a.

 I was at the sea again and pondering Rav Shach's explanation of the Gemara in Avoda Zara 23b and Rosh Hashanah 13a. In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the Gemara asks why burn the asherot (trees that were worshipped)?[If they would have been idols of a gentile, the gentile could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] Tosphot says because of the trees from previous generations. [Rav Shach explains that means that were planted before Abraham.] 

What I was thinking was this. Rav Shach explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned.

What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an ashera [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground.

Today I was wondering if there could be  away this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

So I am still stuck in trying to figure this subject out.

[Just for a reminder to people, I bring here the subject in short. Gemara Avoda Zara23b: why was Israel commanded to burn the Asherot idol trees? Did not the land belong to them? And אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו no one an cause to be forbidden that which does not belong to him. Answer: Israel served the Golden Calf so idolatry was okay to them. 

Gemara Rosh Hashana 13a. How could Israel bring the Omer first stalk of grain when they came into the Land Of Canaan? That grain belonged to the Canaanites! Tosphot says by way of explanation: the land was of Israel and the grain was of the Canaanites. Then Tosphot asks then what were they asking in Avoda Zara 23b? Answer: Because of the trees from the previous generations.]

_______________________________________________________________________

 I was pondering של רב שך explanation of the גמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א.  In short: the land of Israel belongs to Abraham the Patriarch but trees that the Canaanites plant belong to them. So the גמרא עבודה זרה  asks why burn the אשירות  (trees that were worshipped)? [If they would have been idols of a עכו''ם, the עכו''ם could simply verbally nullify them and knock some piece off.] תוספות says because of the trees from previous generations. רב שך explains that means that were planted before Abraham. What I was thinking was this. רב שך explains the trees that had to be burned were not worshipped at first. So when the land was given to Abraham the trees came along. Then Israel [the nation of Israel] worshipped the Golden Calf and so we see idolatry was okay to the and the trees became idols of Israel that needed to be burned. What I asked was the obvious question that a tree that was planted regularly, not in order to be worshipped does not become an אשירה [idol worshipped tree] since it is attached to the ground. Today I was wondering if there could be a way this question might be answered. Perhaps I thought the trees were  in fact planted to be worshipped, and then the land was given to Abraham along with those trees and then the Golden Calf was worshipped and then they become idols of a Israeli. But I can not see how this could make sense. If the land was given to Abraham along with those trees then they already belonged to him before the Golden Calf. Then they needed burning. If Abraham would have refused to acquire idolatrous trees then what changed when the Golden Calf was worshipped? Suddenly an act of acquisition occurred? Obviously not.

הייתי מהרהר בהסבר של רב שך בגמרא עבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב וראש השנה י''ג ע''א. בקיצור: ארץ ישראל שייכת לאברהם  אבל עצים שהכנענים שתלו שייכים להם. אז הגמרא עבודה זרה שואלת למה לשרוף את האשירות (עצים שסגדו להם)? [אם הם היו אלילים של עכו''ם, יכלו העכו''ם פשוט לבטל אותם.] תוספות אומר בגלל העצים מהדורות הקודמים. רב שך מסביר שפירושו שנטעו לפני אברהם. מה שחשבתי זה זה. רב שך מסביר את העצים שהיה צריך לשרוף לא עבדו בהתחלה. אז כשהארץ ניתנה לאברהם, נרכשו גם העצים. ואז ישראל סגדו לעגל הזהב ולכן אנו רואים שעבודת האלילים הייתה בסדר אצלם והעצים הפכו לאלילים של ישראל שהיו צריכים להישרף. מה ששאלתי היא השאלה המתבקשת שעץ שנשתל סתם, שלא על מנת לעבוד לא הופך לאשרה מאחר שהוא מחובר לאדמה. היום תהיתי אם יש דרך לענות על השאלה הזו. אולי חשבתי שהעצים בעצם נטועים כדי לעבוד, ואז הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה ואז סגדו לעגל הזהב ואז הם הופכים לאלילים של ישראלי. אבל אני לא יכול לראות איך זה יכול להיות הגיוני. אם הארץ ניתנה לאברהם יחד עם העצים האלה אז הם כבר היו שייכים לו לפני עגל הזהב. ואז הם היו צריכים שריפה. אם אברהם היה מסרב לרכוש עצי אלילים, אז מה השתנה כאשר סגדו לעגל הזהב? פתאום התרחש מעשה רכישה? ברור שלא

 Since too much stuff is falsely called Torah it occurs to me to make a short list of what counts as authentic Torah. [As the Rambam wrote Just like there is no adding or subtracting from the Written Law so there is no adding or subtracting from the Oral Law. The Rambam goes into this in his letters. 

So the list is the two Talmuds and the Halachic midrashim and agadic midrashim. 

Mechilta, Sifra, Sifrei, Midrash Raba, Midrash Tanhuma, Eliyahu Raba, Eliyahu Zutra, Tosephta, the shor mesechtot printed in the end of the Villna Shas.

But I would have to include in the commandment to learn Torah the commentaries, though not actually "Torah" still they are a part of "learning Torah."

But even in later commentaries, there is some point where things cease to be Torah and start to be Fraud.[Of course that was the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.]

messiah son of joseph

 

The whole subject messiah son of joseph does not seem important to me. That is to say: Torah is about good character. 

But for information: the idea of messiah son of joseph can best be seen in the book of the Gra called "Kol HaTor" קול התור

At any rate, Torah is not a cult of personality. It is devotion to God. No one else. See tehilim 18 verse 2.You see there that King David  was putting his hopes in God, not people.

 The Gra explained that every word of Torah is worth as much as all the other commandments put together. He brings this from the Yerushalmi.The Yerushalmi says the mishna תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם refers to every word of Torah.

[You can ask if the same idea applies to Mathematics and Physics according to the opinions that Math and Physics are included in the commandment to learn Torah. See Rambam laws of Learning Torah where he divides the learning time into the Oral Written Law and Gemara and adds the things called Pardes are included in Gemara. We see  in the beginning of the Mishna Torah that Pardes refers to the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics. And in the Guide he says so openly in the introduction

But this group of Rishonim [Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the Doctors, Rambam etc] include Metaphysics and I do not know what that would mean for today. In their time this meant Plato Aristotle Plotinus. Al Kindi, and Ibn Rushd. But today? I guess this would include Kant, Fries, Hegel, Leonard Nelson. 

[The main thing in Torah and Metaphysics is to know what to exclude. In philosophy I would exclude everything after Kant, Fries and Hegel. In Torah I would exclude everything after the end of the Talmudic period --as the Gemara says itself "Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the time when one can decide a halacha" רבינא ורב אשי סןף הוראה

So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another.

Someone asked me about difficult issues in faith issues. You might have noticed these yourself. My answer to this has been the "dinge an sich [Things in themselves]. That means this: There are areas where reason can venture into, even without empirical evidence.  These are areas of possible experience. [For example Math.]But there are also areas where reason tries to venture into that it has no access to. and when it tries to get in, it comes up with self contradictions. [e.g. Is the universe infinite? If yes how can any length not have an end? And if it is finite then what limits it?] So that is my general approach to spiritual issues. They are all dinge an sich, and thus outside the realm of human or even pure reason. So it is not a surprise to me when one midrash contradicts another. I say that is to be expected. And if there would not be contradictions, that in itself would be a problem, Trying to insert Reason into spirit is a mistake, and thinking about these things makes people insane.

 Reason integrated with Faith --Athens and Jerusalem was a great achievement of the Middle Ages.

So you can see how faith without philosophy leads to absurd results. But philosophy without faith also tends to lunacy.

So the question is how to get the right balance. I think that Kant, Kelley Ross [based on the Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] and Hegel are the best when it comes to philosophy.

That is to say: people that came before Kant all seem to have some sort of difficulties with either pure reason or empirical evidence.  Spinoza and Leibniz were great, so were John Locke and Hume. But each system has problems. To me it seems the best solutions are in Kant, Leonard Nelson and Hegel.

But philosophy after these three took a nose dive. To show this I recommend Robert Hanna's books showing how Analytic Philosophy misunderstood Kant and went off into directions not very well thought out. As for Continental philosophy the same goes. As John Searle puts it : "Twentieth century philosophy is clearly false". 

The point of philosophy is to see the big picture. What is it all about? But the idea that Natural Science needs philosophy is not so absurd as it sounds. After all there are tons of pseudo sciences nowadays tha masquerade as legitimate science. E.g. Psychology.  It is by definition pseudo science since there is no conceivable observation that could falsify it. Climate science is another doozy.  

 In the religious world, it is thought that if you can change the words, then you can change the reality. How do you see this? Well, one example is idolatry. If you can call worshipping dead people "going to kivrei tzadikim (graves of  tzadikim) that somehow changes the reality.

Magic to force God to do your will, you no longer call it "magic" rather "yichudim" unifications. And that is somehow supposed to change the reality.

But this is not confined to the religious. In California you call prisons "houses of corrections." They are not houses of corrections. Nobody gets corrected. They get imprisoned. And usually come out much worse. So perhaps we should call them houses that take mild criminals and turn them into hardened criminals.