't Hooft has an approach to Quantum Mechanics that is realistic. That is he derives the regular equations based on information loss of black holes which is a classical result. [That is what happens when black holes evaporate.] So it occurred to me that this is related to the ER= EPR conjecture in which all entangled states have worm holes connecting them. If this is so--as much evidence seems to indicate--then 't Hooft approach would be right.

And as Dr Kelley Ross pointed out that would be like Kant's empirical realism approach.[Empirical realism plus transcendental idealism.] And that is not like Bohr. That is in the debate between Einstein and Bohr, Einstein would be correct.

I have long thought that Rav Nahman is trying in the LeM to accomplish something along the lines that the Rambam was doing in the Guide for the Perplexed. While the Rambam was trying to find the right balance between Torah and Aristotle, Rav Nahman was trying to find the deeper meaning of Torah  in a way that relates to people. But I think that Rav Nahman is often taken out of context. I think it would be best to understand in him in a sense of continuing the Musar tradition of trying to see the practical implications of Torah and the big picture. 

I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is ,-- I long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all.

 I was reminded about the book Or Israel [The Light of Israel] on Rav Israel Salanter by his disciple Rav Isaac Blazer that had a powerful effect on me. I was thinking what was it? The basic thesis of the book is that the fear of God is the key to everything--all good in the world to come and to Torah.  I was struggling with Gemara at the Mir and I think that that was part of the effect this book had on me. It was giving me the key to come to understand Torah--and that is by fear of God which comes by learning Musar.  And even more so, it was showing that all good in the world to come is dependent on fear of God. People are not automatically moral. Rather--as Michael Huemer puts it, people are basically Amoral. They just learn to talk in moral terms but what really matters to them is not right and wrong what so ever. Only very few individuals have any real moral sense and because of them, others gain some vague sense of morality. [Kelley Ross would put it differently. He would say the people know moral principles but do not know that they know. This is Socratic ignorance that we do not know consciously  what we really deep inside do know. Our knowledge need to be brought into the open like the slave boy that did in fact know the answer to an geometric problem but did not know that he knew until Socrates by careful questioning brought his knowledge into the open.

[But I should add just for the sake of disclose that I basically try to walk as much as I can in the path of my parents who were Reform Jews. That is I  long for the the straight path of Torah, but I think the so called "religious" have nothing to do with Torah at all and if anything are on teh opposite extreme from Torah. All except teh straight Litvak yeshivot.]

z25 music file

 z25 C minor  midi   [z25 mp3]  [z25 nwc]

 The Gra said to Rav Chaim of Voloshin not to be afraid in the issues involved with the law--pesak din. Therefore I do not pay attention to what is politically correct in the religious world. When it comes to issue of the Law of the Torah --right against wrong, public opinion is worthless. 

I should add here that there is an amazing spirit of Torah that can be found in yeshivot that walk in the path of the Gra. [Commonly known as Litvak yeshivot because of coming from "Litva" as said in Russian  or "Lithuania" in English.] The way this can be understood is the idea of numinous. I am really not sure if any words can really capture the spirit of Torah that I felt in an immediate and powerful way. But I can see that it takes a certain sort of overcoming of obstacles to be able to stick with this path. Plus a kind of appreciation for it that I fell from. But for right now I would like to try just to convey this kind of power of holiness that can be found in such places. [Though I can see that a lot depends on the place --since they are not all so great, and the person.] So perhaps I might just mention my own experience. I was in one Litvak yeshiva Shar Yashuv where I really began to feel this intense aspect of Torah. I could draw myself away from learning Gemara only with great difficulty.  The same goes for the Mir in NY. That also had this sort of intense feeling of the primal necessity to learn and keep Torah in the most simple straightforward way. I fell from this after a few years, but those years were something I imagine the Garden of Eden must be like.

 I noticed that the old Orion idea of using atomic energy to power space flight is back.

Also see this NASA site

  My feeling about space flight is that it is great and important, --that is to have a base on the Moon and Mars, but for a long time I have hoped there would be some insight on how to get to the stars. Part of my motivation for learning the Physics of String Theory is is that hope. [Also there is the opinion of some medieval authorities that learning Physics and Metaphysics is a part of learning Torah]. But the main hope for getting to the stars seems to me to be due to a suggestion that ER=EPR that is an Einstein Rosen Bridge is the same thing that keeps atoms entangled.   If this is true, then there are plenty of wormholes around. The question would be then how to expand them and put them together and then get them to attach themselves to "somewhere else". 

i do not know if my dad was involved in this particular project, though there were projects between the U-2 and Star Wars SDI that he was involved with but they were so top secret that he did not share anything about his work with his children. The only thing i knew about was his camera on the U-2 and the later work at TRW on Star Wars,--In between i was aware later that he also was involved in top secret projects for the USA government but never knew what they were. [It was not that he was so educated.  True he had gone to Cal-Tech. But the fact is that the USA wanted his talents in inventing stuff- not because of any academic degrees, but because in invention  he was a genius as they had already seen in his inventing the Infra Red Telescope.  

Even though the Musar movement was based on the idea of learning the four basic Musar books חובות לבבות, אורחות צדיקים, שערי תשובה, מסילת ישרים ,  I found the Light Of Israel and other books by the disiples of Rav Israel Salanter to be of the most help to me. Musar also helps to understand what Torah is all about. It is all too easy to go off on confused  directions because of lack of understanding the hierarchy of principle in Torah.  

[Though I do find the books of Rav Nahman very helpful even though they are  not a part of the regular Musar books still I should add that I think Rav Nahman is mostly good if people already have a good background in Gemara, the Ari, and Musar. --But I do not deny that he can be helpful for everyone also. Still without the prerequisites, there is a tendency to go off in odd directions.

[Musar is based on the idea of learning these books of morals from the Middle Ages, Obligations of the Hearts, Gates of Repentance, Ways of the Righteous and also the book of Rav Moshe Haim Lutzato The Ways of the Just.

 There is a connection between Devekut [attachment with God] and learning Torah even though this is often denied. In fact I think that the sort of learning in depth at Shar Yashuv and the Mir were for me a sort of bridge towards a deep attachment --devekut [attachment with God]. But talking with people you always hear how learning Torah is dry intellectualism as opposed to real attachment with God. I think this dichotomy is false. In fact I believe the only real path towards authentic attachment with God is by learning Torah.

And the enemies of the Gra and the straight Litvak path  I think are in deep self delusion that their idiocies somehow amount to attachment with God. In fact, you can see the exact opposite of their claims. Good character is connected with true attachment with God. Since good honest character is found in the Litvak world therefore by definition that is where you will find true attachment with God. [I am not saying good character is universal in the Litvak world but rather that it characterizes that world. Exceptions do not discount the rule.] [I admit the Dark Side has enter into the Litvak world. however there still is a trace of authentic Torah.]

 The actual source from where Rav Nahman [Breslov] (LeM vol I ch 12 annd 28 ) brings the idea of Torah scholars that are demons does not say that exact idea. The actual Zohar [Parshat Pinchas] does say there are demons that are expert in Torah. But then Rav Nahman deduces that since there are Jewish demons and Gentile demons thus it seems that these demons can enter into people and take over their minds and souls. Actually there are plenty of examples as we know about some murderers that actually feel that their minds were taken over. 

The problem with demonic Torah scholars I think is that they ruin the reputation of Torah when it becomes clear to people what they actually are under the fancy clothing and pretense. [This is think is the reason you see this subject raised in the LeM  so many times.--Not however always in the same way. Sometimes he talks about מפרסמים של שקר famous religious leaders that are deceivers. Sometimes he talks about not giving authority to those who are not fit. 

My impression is that if people would simply pay attention to the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication and to Rav Shach, they they would be better off. After all the general Litvak yeshiva world is about straight Torah with no pretenses or claims. What you see is what you get.

[There is no question that Rav Nachman undderstands that there are demonic forces in the world a a large portion of them occupy the souls of people that look and act like Torah scholars. Thee is however a way to be saved from them and that is by  faith in the wise. That is to believe that the Gra must have had some reason for putting his signature on the letter of excommunication even if we may not understand the reason right now. --However I think I can see the reason. The Gra saw through the façade of deception.

 It is an odd sort of fact that western sort of approaches have the parents being not very worthy of respect.--starting with the faith of the Greeks where the child of Chaos kills him and takes over the throne. Then his child kills him... etc. A whole series of children killing their father until you get to Zeus.

 This is so much different than Confucius where you find the root of all virtue is piety towards ones parents--emulating their ways and actually serving them in gratitude for all they did for him or her even much more before they can remember.

[One thing you see in Confucius is an important point-is that  baalei teshuva [people that have left the way of their parents in order to join the religious] are by definition wicked. And you can see this. This is the reason why the great yeshivas like Brisk do not accept baali teshuva-- after all, if they can abandon the path of their parents, they can not be stable decent human beings. [No matter how religious they imagine themselves.]

 I was reading a bit more about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky [she passed away 17 Tishrei] and noted an interesting fact. That he would make a sium [a small party in honor of finishing a tractate] every year on the whole Shas, that is the regular Gemara [Babylonian ] and also the Yerushalmi [Written in Tiberias] with the rishonim [medieval authorities] and some achronim [authorities after the Middle Ages]. That would be on the day before Passover. And the wine from that party would be called the sium wine and people would save it and later apply it as a remedy for different kinds of maladies.

It puts a sort of nostalgia in me for the golden years that I was in two great yeshivas where Torah was learned for its own sake.  [Both in NY , Shar Yashuv and Mirrer.]

[This however was not exactly like the path of my parents who had great respect for Torah, but their path was more along the line of emphasizing other aspects of Torah like "to be  a mensch"[decent human being], to be self reliant--never to ask or accept charity. My dad had gone to Cal Tech, and I certainly showed a lot of interest in following him in that path when I was young. 

So nowadays I try to walk in this sort of middle path of trying to learn Torah along with Math and Physics as I think my parents would have approved of.

Rav Kinyevsky  is the son of the Steipler who wrote some great books on Shas and who was one of the great sages of the Litvak world which walk more or less in the path of the Gra. (Not enough so , since they ignore the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. I never got into the books of the Steipler since they were around in yeshivot when I was just trying to manage with Gemara Rashi and the Maharsha. Much less get into achronim. Only much later when I was learning with David Bronson did I learn --or relearn- the path of study in depth .

I should mention that learning Torah seems to require a wife that appreciates that approach. While the way of learning Torah for its own sake --and not receive money for doing so-still there a need for wife that appreciates this service of learning Torah. 

 A Zava (a woman who has seen blood more than seven days) needs living waters [-a sea or spring,-- not a regular mikve ( a place where rain waters have collected). So if we are worried about Ziva [seeing blood for longer than seven days]--which apparently we are since we require seven clean days, then why not also require a spring or sea? 

The wife of Rav Kinyevsky

I noticed in the book about the wife of Rav Kinyevsky a point about "bitul Torah". [Bitul Torah means not learning Torah when one can.] What I could gather from the book is that she held strongly to the idea that you see in the Gemara that a good wife is one who helps her husband to learn Torah. I forget the exact Gemara but from what I can recall it goes something like this: טל אורות טלייך ["The dew of lights is your dew."] Who will rise in the time of the revival of the dead? One who has the dew of Torah.  If so, then how can women merit to the revival of the dead? By enabling their husbands to learn Torah and by bringing up their children to learn Torah. 

So this is apparently what she did. There is brought lots of stories in that book showing this. She would heat and reheat the meals of her husband so that when he would get home it would be already warm so he could have his meal immediately and then get back to learning.  When there was almost nothing to eat, she would make a full meal for her husband and for herself have just bread and margarine. One time someone wanted to talk with her husband when he was learning and she said, "He is learning now." They countered this with, "What would be the big deal to spend a few minutes away from learning?" She answered "Do you want my husband to be an am haaretz (ignoramus)?"  

{I recall this sort of atmosphere at the Mir and in Shar Yashuv. However over the years I have taken a slightly different approach. That is what you see in some rishonim that Physics and Metaphysics and a part of the commandment of learning Torah.] [Even  the Gra held that ignorance of any fact in the seven wisdoms causes ignorance in Torah a hundred fold.]

 Even though there are great people like the Litvak sages, e.g. Rav Kinyevsky and others that are devoted to Torah for its own sake, still the religious world is a sort of nightmare. That is to say that some are sincerely devoted to serving God, still the general group character is a  kind of problem. There is a sort of attempt to present themselves as righteous as a group. This is obvious. Yet the fact is there are very few that are in fact like Rav Kinyevsky. The majority are just regular mammals. Not particularly good.

For a test run one ought to spend one day living in Mea Shearim and then see how all the love bombing is all a façade. I can think of no worse nightmare than the religious being in control.. And I know this from the experience of many, many people who have experienced what the religious world is really like minus all the pretense.

What is however true and great is the holy Torah, and that is in fact important. But the religious themselves are the in the business of using the appearance of keeping rituals of Torah to make money and gain power. They are as righteous as a Venus fly trap.

[If you are young and naïve there is a lot of effort spent on trapping you into a net in which there is no escape. But the reality is the religious world is a Kafkian nightmare. I hope than when I discuss the importance of learning and keeping Torah , that I do not sound as if I am giving any sort of approval of the religious world which is the opposite of Torah.]

Rav Elyashiv

 I am really not very aware of the great Litvak sages [gedolim] that are around nowadays. It is only by a sheer miracle that I have heard of Rav Shach.

But today I was in the Na Nach place and saw an interesting book about the wife of Rav Kinevsky. [Sadly she passed away this year.] [Rav Kinyevsky I think is the son of the author of the series of books called Kehilat Yaakov. I saw that book when I was in Shar Yashuv but did not have much of a chance to learn it.] 

At any rate there is a nice story I saw in that book. Rav Elyashiv is apparently one of the present day Litvak sages. [From what I understood from that book he is apparently a grandson of the Leshem, a commentary on the Eitz Chaim.] 

So the story goes like this. There is a fellow who was married for ten years but did not have children. So he and his wife agreed to divorce. Then right after the divorce, it turned out that she was already pregnant. That means there was no reason to divorce in the first place. But sadly enough he is a Koken [priest] so he is not allowed to remarry. A kohen can not marry a divorced woman as you can see in the Book of Leviticus [in the section of Emor].  So he went to Rav Elyashiv. Rav Elyashiv told him to go to the Western Wall. Though that seems to have  nothing to do with the problem at hand still this fellow had "faith in the sages" so he went there and prayed his heart out. Then someone there walked over to him and asked what he is crying about. He said, "It does not matter there is nothing anyone can do to help me." The fellow that walked over to him was stubborn and kept insisting that he tell him what is the matter. So finally he gave in and told him. That fellow that had walked over to him then said to him, "You need to go to your father." [His father was in a hospital in the USA]. This also seemed to have no bearing on teh issue at hand. Still in his confidence in the advice of Rav Elyashiv he decided to go visit his father.  When he got to the USA it was in fact close to the end of the life of his father. He got to the hospital.  When he walked into his father's room his father told him it is very good that he came just then because he had something to tell him that he had never told him before. But since he knew it was time to leave this world , he decided he must tell him. That he is adopted.  That means that he really is not a kohen in the first place. Thus he returned to Israel and remarried his wife.

 

 In Rav Shach's Laws of Gitin chapter 1 law 25 he brings Tosphot Gitin page 86. The Mishna says a divorce document with no witnesses but written by the hand of the husband is not valid. Tosphot says the reason is because of the time. Rav Shach explains that means Tosphot would be going by the present status to push the time of the divorce backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from teh death penalty.  So this is what Tosphot means. If the doc would be his own writing with no time on it we would think to put the time in the past and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to Tosphot this is only the opinion of R Meir (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not R Elazar (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like R. Elazar. So the law is the writing of his own hand with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to Tosphot.]

My question here is that even R Elazar might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that Rav Shach is holding that R Elazar goes by prior status  and R Meir by present status. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that Rav Shach is saying the argument about the status is what cause the argument about the writing of his own hand. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the signing witnesses is what causes the validity to depend on present status. 

[Sorry if I am being a bit short on details here. Just to fill in one issue that might cause confusion, let me say  that "status now" means what is the state of being now you assume goes back in time. Status from the being means going forward. So e.g. you have a married woman who commits adultery. Then shows up with a divorce doc. You do not know when it was given. If you go back the status now then you assume that what is the state now was probably the state as far back in time until the minute you know it was not the case. So At least there is a doubt that at the time of the act perhaps she was not married and therefore not liabe to the death penalty. But if you go by prior status then you assume she was married until the minute she shows up with the doc.]

___________________________________

 In רב שך's Laws of גיטין chapter 1 law 25 he brings תוספות גיטין page 86. The Mishna says a גט divorce document  כתב ידו is not valid. תוספות says the reason is because of the time. רב שך explains that means תוספות would be going by the present status חזקא דהשתא to push the time of the גט backwards in time. The regular reason there is time on a divorce is because he might marry the daughter of his brother and she might commit adultery and because she is his relative he would then write a גט divorce document and predate it before the time of the adultery to save her from  death penalty.  So this is what תוספות means. If the גט would be his own writing with no time on it, we would think to put the time in the past, and thus she would not be liable the death penalty for adultery. But to תוספות this is only the opinion of ר' מאיר (the signed witnesses cause the validity of the divorce), not ר' אלעזר (that the witnesses that see cause the validity of the divorce). And the law of like ר' אלעזר. So the law is the כתב ידו with no time and no witnesses is valid. [The writing of his own hand takes the place of witnesses to תוספות. My question here is that even ר' אלעזר might hold we go by the present status to push the time of the divorce back in time. I mean to say that רב שך is holding that R Elazar goes by חזקא מעיקרא  and ר' מאיר by חזקא דהשתא. I think that this is not implicit in their argument  about which set of witnesses cause the validity of the divorce. But I can see that רב שך is saying the argument about the חזקות is what cause the argument about the כתב ידו. But even so, it is hard to see that the opinion that the עדי חתימה כרתי to depend on חזקא דהשתא. 

____________________________________________________________________________

בהלכות גיטין של רב שך פרק 1 הלכה 25 הוא מביא את תוספות גיטין עמוד פ''ו. המשנה אומרת כי  גט של כתב ידו אינו תקף. תוספות אומר שהסיבה היא בגלל הזמן. רב שך מסביר שפירוש התוספות הוא שהסטטוס הנוכחי חזקא דהשתא דוחף את הזמן של הגט לאחור בזמן. [הסיבה שיש זמן בגט היא מכיוון שהוא עלול להתחתן עם בת אחיו והיא עלולה לנאוף ומכיוון שהיא קרובת משפחתו הוא היה כותב מסמך גירושין אחרי זמן של הניאוף עם זמן מוקדם כדי להציל אותה מעונש מוות.] אז זה מה שתוספות אומר. אם הגט היה הכתיבה שלו ללא זמן עליו, היינו חושבים לשים את הזמן בעבר, וכך היא לא תחויב בעונש מוות על ניאוף. אך לתוספות זו רק דעתו של ר' מאיר (העדים החתומים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין), ולא ר' אלעזר (שהעדים הרואים גורמים לתוקף הגירושין). והחוק כמו ר' אלעזר. אז החוק הוא כתב ידו ללא זמן וללא עדים תקף. [כתיבת ידו שלו תופסת את מקומם של עדים לתוספות. השאלה שלי כאן היא שאפילו ר' אלעזר עשוי להחזיק שאנחנו הולכים לפי הסטטוס הנוכחי כדי לדחוף את זמן הגירושין אחורה בזמן. אני מתכוון לומר שרב שך קובע כי ר' אלעזר מחזיק  בחזקא מעיקרא ור' מאיר בחזקא דהשתא. אני חושב שזה לא משתמע בטיעון שלהם לגבי איזו קבוצת עדים גורמת לתוקף הגירושין. אבל אני יכול לראות שרב שך מכווין שהוויכוח על החזקות הוא הגורם לוויכוח על כתב היד. אך למרות זאת, קשה לראות כי הדעה  שעדי חתימה כרתי תלויה בחזקת דהשתא

 I have been thinking about an argument between the Rashbam and the Ramban [Nachmanides] if a divorce document needs to have the time of its writing put into it. [In Rav Shach, Laws of Divorce perek I chapter 25]

The Rashbam [Shmuel ben Meir,  a grandson of Rashi] holds it never needs the time in it. The only opinion that holds it needs the time is R. Meir who holds the witnesses on the document cause the divorce to become valid. But the law goes like R. Elazar that the witnesses that see the giving of the document to the woman cause the validity of the divorce.  So he would hold there is no worry about the daughter of his brother.  [The opinion that holds the reason the time is in the document is because of the fact that he might have married the daughter of his brother, and then she might have committed adultery. Then, since she is his relative, he might write a divorce document, and put in a time before the time of the adultery to save her from the death penalty.] But to R. Elazar there is no worry about that because if there is not time in the document, then we would assume she was married until right now and thus there is not worry about the daughters of his brother.  

What occurred to me today was this question. Why does this have to do specially with the opinion of R Elazar?  I think the idea is that R Meir not have the same idea--that we would assume the divorce did not happen until the last minute. So the time needs to be put in so that he does not put in a latter time. But would not the same go for R. Elazar? He could have a divorce now and have no time in it and later put in a time? That is to say I am not really clear about what the explanation of Rav Shach is here.

 The way the Native Americans are presented in schools nowadays seems to leave out half the story. I noticed this concerning the Iroquois. Their genocide of the Erie, and later attempt to do the same to the Shawnee is simply left out of the story.   

[I am just mentioning one example. Of people are going to learn about the history of the Native Americans, then it ought to be done right and thoroughly, or not at all.]

 Rav Avraham Abulafia is unknown to most people.  partly because he is considered a "mekubal" the last thing he would have liked to be known as. He wrote--''the Christians believe in three gods, and the mekubalim in ten.'' And until today you can see he was right. I was in the Breslov place today and learned LeM 33 and tried to explain that God is beyond time and space since these two are His creations. One can not say ''God is here,'' nor that he is absent from here since neither predicate are applicable to Him.  Most people that learn the LeM of Rav Nahman seem to think that pantheism is correct, but in spite of this being not the Torah approach it is also incorrect from the aspect that has no plurality in Him. If everything is God, then one introduces a plurality into Divine simplicity--(Divine simplicity means that God is not a composite. He has no predicates. Not time nor space, nor any sort of ingredients.

[Just to be clear--God has no characteristics that can be applicable to finite beings--as Saddia gaon makes clear.

There is no such thing as tolerance.

 There is no such thing as people that do not have a cut off point... of what is acceptable and what is not. There is no such thing as tolerance. The Left will not tolerant the political right. Everyone has some cut off point of what they will tolerate and what they will not. Often it will be a case of self deception. Where people are congratulating themselves of how tolerant they are by not tolerating the intolerant. (I wish they would see the logical contradiction in that.) [This is not my own new idea. I heard this in Uman by a fellow that I had  known in Safed. ]

Maybe you can see this in people that will not tolerant "racism" in whites, but hate males or whites etc. But This is just one example. I am sure most people an find examples of their own. There is no such thing as tolerating a little bit of cyanide in your chocolate pudding. 

z24 E major 

 I have been mulling over in my mind back and forth  the subject of documents. It is something that at first seems like a direct contradiction that I must have seen plenty of times but never paid attention to the fact that these two statements directly contradict. One is עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו נחקרה עדותן בבית דין (witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court. ) and the another statement is מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. (from their mouths, not from their writing.) I would never have noticed this if I did not see in the Avi Ezri  this exact issue. [In Laws of Gitin] chapter I halacha 24.] 

The law  is that in a "get" (divorce) document there is time.

The  sanhedrin there is a mishna that monetary laws need to be investigated and verified.  The gemara right there asks if so why are loans OK if the time put on them is after the actual loan was made? The gemara answers so as to not shut the door in front of people that want to borrow money. [That is-to lessen the restrictions] The Nemukai Yoseph asks then want about a get or kidushin?

Rav Chaim of Brisk answers there are documents that cause an event.-like gitin or kidushin or a document of  a present. This type is what the gemara refers to as עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמו נחקרה עדותן בבית דין (witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court.  The another type of document is simply a proof that an event happened--like a loan. For that we know that it needs to be verified by bringing in the witnesses. This seems to answer the question of the Nemukai Yoseph. However Nahmanides/ the Ramban however disagrees with this sort of division. To him documents of loans are also regular documents. You do not divide between them and documents of kidushin. So the whole answer of Rav Chaim falls off in this case.[]

Rav Shach answers a different answer.  He notes that sometimes documents involve a court case that needs to be investigated.--a "din Torah". That can mean loans  or documents of presents. These are  cases where the doc. is a doc. but loans have the advantage that the sages lessened the requirements in order not to shut the door. But cases like kidushin do not need a court and so do not require verification in the first place in a court. So you would not even need to say "witnesses signed on a document are as if their testimony was already investigated and confirmed in court"--because you do not even need a court.

 I wanted to mention some of the major aspects of the path of the Gra. (1) Learning Torah is the most essential part of it. It is not just from his comment on the Mishna in Peah אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור וכו'.. ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם והגמרא ירושלמי אומרת שאין לו שיעור היינו אפילו על ידי דבר [דיבור] אחר מן התורה אדם מקיים את המצווה של לימוד התורה. [These are the things that have no measure... and learning Torah is equal to them all. The Talmud Yerushalmi says that means no lowest measure. That is even by one word of Torah one fulfills the commandment of learning Torah.] Rather the spirit of Torah is embedded in the path of the Gra. Learning in depth also is an essential part of the Gra's path, i.e. Tosphot, Maharsha , R. Akiva Eiger, the Ketzot etc.

(2) Not to speak lashon hara. [i.e. not to speak evil about others.]

(3) Trust in God --as you can see in the Madragat HaAdam who brings the comment of the Gra on Mishlei.

(4) Great caution in dinei mamonot --monetary laws--Choshen Mishpat.

[5] "The seven wisdoms". This is a forgotten part of the Gra. Most people assume that math and physics are not in the Gra's approach. But you can see that it is in the intro of the translation of Euclid by Baruch of Shkolov who was a disciple of the Gra. There he quotes the Gra: "For every lack of knowledge in any one of the seven wisdoms, one will lack a hundred fold more in Torah."]

There is some sort of problem with Torah scholars that are demons [mentioned in the Zohar parshat Pinchas that seems to cloud the issue of keeping Torah. [This often comes up in conversations with people that have found their lives irretrievably ruined due to these so called Torah scholars. This is an amazingly popular subject among people that have tried to keep Torah, but then find that the supposed representatives of Torah are demons--in the picturesque language of Rav Nahman. ] That is you might find a person that is seriously devoted to keeping Torah, But then he encounters one of these demons that dress and talk like true Torah scholars. This makes the whole possibility of keeping and learning Torah difficult. For he might fall for the deception and be pulled into the net of the demons, or he might give up on the whole possibility of learning and keeping Torah.   At least it is helpful to know that someone deals with this problem as is brought in the LeM of Rav Nahman. [Lem vol I 12and 28. But also mentioned many times in the LeM, e.g., vol I 61 or vol II perek 1 and perek 8. ] Even of one is suffering from the troubles caused to him or her by being fooled and tricked by these Torah scholars that are demons, still it is a comfort to know that he or she is not alone. 

One solution to this problem is the yeshivas founded in the path of the Gra, i.e. straight Torah with no pretenses. However the demons have extended their reign so far as to enter, and sometimes even take over these basically good places. I personally have not found a solution to this problem except to try to learn Torah in my own space--as far as I am able--which is not very much.

[I might mention here that in fact I am not in a place where there is any straight Litvak yeshiva. If there was, I might very well change my approach and try to learn there. I have hear that there are extensions of Ponovitch in different areas. but I have not heard of anything like that near my area. Recently. I saw  a group from the Aderet Eliyahu [based on the Gra] just visiting from Jerusalem, but so far I have not heard of any real presence of a Gra sort of yeshiva in this area. [I might add to learn the the Birchat Shmuel--also a disciple of Rav  Chaim of Brisk and Rav Naftali Troup. I do not know of learning these could take the place of  an authentic Litvak yeshiva but nowadays, learning at home might be the only possibility because the immense confusion that exists in the Torah world.   

[I should mention that Torah scholars that are demons  is a wide spread problem in the Torah world. It is almost impossible to avoid unless one learns at home. So what one might do is simply get some of the basic Torah books, e.g. the Chidushei of Rav Chaim of Brisk  and learn at home.[Or the book of Rav Shimon Skopf, or the Avi Ezri.]  

The Ari'zal [Rav Isaac Luria] says in this world the evil is the majority. So if one finds that someone is presented as a great tzadik, the likelihood is that he is a demon

 should at least be taken as a possibility.

Trotsky said to the Politburo, they should tax people, but let them keep what they own.

 Trotsky in his autobiography recounts an amazing detail. In 1920 he told the Politburo that unless they got off of "war communism"  and stopped confiscating goods the economy would collapse. He says they should  tax people, but let them keep what they own. (Hey! So what about Communism?)) So he noticed the problem. There was no incentive to work in the communist system except fear of arrest and prison. But no positive motivation. Why work if all your needs are given for free?

[However I wonder if he ever wondered about the system he helped put in place. ]

 When things do not go my way I wonder what I did wrong. After all this is an open Gemara in tractate Shabat אין ייסורים בלי עוון "there are no troubles without sin."

I figure that my major sins are probably hidden from me since that is the nature of sin--to cloud one's vision. Still, I figure that at least there are a few I am well aware of. And I think that if I could at least correct some of the smaller ones, maybe I could eventually get to the bigger ones.

So I came up with a list of four major sins that I am sure were really sins. Not just from book learning, but from results of those sins. When I went through this process in my mind I think I was in Uman, Then sometime later I decided to add a fifth sin to the list--bitul Torah [not learning Torah when one can]. Or more exactly walking away from the straight path of the Gra and Musar of Israel Salanter. 

The other four I am not sure if I should write down here because they might not be applicable to others. However, I do not think I have really been able to correct the sin of bitul Torah very well. And even to suggest to others how to go about avoiding bitul Torah does not seem simple. To support yeshivas that walk in  the path of the Gra should be the simplest way, or to start one's own group that walks in the path of the Gra.  [There are some places like that. For example the Aderet Eliyahu in the old city of Jerusalem. Then there are Litvak yeshivas which tend towards the Gra to some degree. Those are a mixed bunch. Some Litvak yeshivas are great like Ponovitch and Brisk. [I myself was at Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY and both I think are also very great. Both were learning in depth but in  different ways. Shar Yashuv was like looking at Tosphot through an electron microscope. The Mir in NY was like  looking at Shas in a global way--something like you will see in the books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri]    

what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. Navardok [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz]

 So how much effort should one expend to get to his goals? None at at all? Or trust in God? This seems ambiguous. The way the Madragat HaAdam [the disciple of Rav Israel Salanter, Joseph Yosel Horwitz] understands things is that what is decreed for one will happen anyway no matter what. But more often it seems that it is by trust that one needs no effort. Even if this can no be right still it is useful to conceive as if trust takes the place of effort. And does a better job.

[I am not dealing here with the opinion of Ibn Pakuda that one should expend effort, but also trust in God--the very thing the Gra says not to do. But ven Ibn Pakuda agrees that when one accepts on himself the yoke of Torah there is removed from him the yoke of work,

And the "yoke  of Torah" includes Physics and Metaphysics as stated in Ibn Pakuda and Rambam.

problem with the study of history

 The problem with the study of history is that it is most often a subtle means of trying to get people outraged about something or other. It pretends to be "academic", but most often is hiding the evils of the side they like, and exaggerating the virtues of the side they like. [There is almost always some agenda.]

I encounter this often in conversations with people that have heard only one side of some events.  Often I have no opinion one way or the other, but what surprises me is the fact that when people have heard abundant "facts" on one side of things.  So history is the art of getting people to elevate a regrettable and sad occurrence into an outrage.

[I could give examples but, I am sure you can provide plenty on your own from your own experience. It is not that being outraged is "off." Rather that one ought to be extra careful about what to be outraged about=-and to make doubly sure to look into all the facts.] 

[I like to learn history. But I tend to try to do so as thoroughly as I can, and go to original sources as much as possible. Either do it right,  or do not do it at all.] 

 z23 D minormp3   z23 midi   z23 nwc

Michael Huemer on moral objectivism.

Reason, Objectivity, and Goodness" .... Moral objectivism (like objectivism in general) seems to be entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:

(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgements correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)"

This seems to me to be important because in fact we find all rishonim [medieval authorities] holding that the goal of Torah is to bring up to objective morality. The simplest place to see this is the Sefer HaChinuch, where he lists all the commandments of the Torah along with some of its laws and details and then also explains the reason for teach particular command.  The reasons  are what Saadia Gaon calls "חוקי בשכל" "laws of reason"

music file z22

 z22 C minor  z22 midi  z22 nwc

za16 midi  za16 nwc

 Even though Fries himself as development of Kant seems to be lacking, still the later development of Leonard Nelson seems a lot better as Kelley Ross makes note of. Still the issues between Fries, Hegel and Prichard seem to be based on the results of their systems in the political sphere. But if we would be looking at political structures , it does  not seem that any of them were right but rather the approach f John Locke. So these must be two different areas of value Plato , Fries and Hegel were very great thinkers in philosophy, but not politics..

The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors

 The actual career of my dad at TRW. TRW made the Vela satellites that had X ray detectors. That was one of my dad's specialties.  He had invented a supper sharp copy machine [called the copy-mate machine which he had a patent on and had a factory making it in Newport Beach CA.] based on x rays. Before that he invented the infrared telescope. 

So from 1965 and on he worked at TRW making the satellites that used x-rays. Then they used his expertise in infrared detection to make the the Infrared satellites of the  Defense Support Program (DSP).

Later after the launch of those satellites he worked on laser communication between satellites. That was the only time that I actually came with him to TRW to see the actual lab where he was making the laser apparatus to be used for satellite communications and links.

Then at that point the event of the KGB infiltration into TRW happened [that the movie  The Falcon and the Snowman  was based on.] So that was the end of government contracts for TRW (until the 1990's),-- and my dad quit his job there.

 Tosphot in Gitin page 4. First opinion: R. Elazar holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of kidushin  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion is this is only for gitin and kidushin, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. 

What does this mean?  That a document of gitin and kidushin is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But Rav Shach askes that that ought not to be so because Rav Jeramiah says the Mishna where two gitin were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other-that mishna can not be like R Elazar. Rav Shach says if the gitin are valid, then why not? [ R Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely Lishma. What makes that mishna not like R Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of gitin valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of Rav Shach is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women then why should that not be like R. Elazar? After all there is not reason the witnesses of the act need to be Lishma. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] So it must be that in gitin and kidushin without witnesses seeing the actual event, the doc. itself is not valid.

[Avi Ezri Gitin perek 1. halacha 13] 

I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? [And in fact Rav Shach himself writes this idea later in Perek I halacha 23, that is that the witnesses need to know what is going on. They need to read the get and to know whom it is for.---not in exactly those words, but that is the idea.] That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of Rav Shach is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for gitin we need also them to see the act. That is I am saying that the עדי מסירה witnesses of the act also need to be lishma. and if so then the first way of Rav Shach is right. See Avi Ezri chapter I halacha 16 about what the witnesses need to know.

[I know I am not explaining this in detail. Maybe I will get a chance some other time. I was just writing this to jot down the basic idea of my question. In the meantime you might look at the Avi Ezri itself where Rav Shach explains his reasoning that the witnesses of the act do not need "lishma". That very assumption is what got me thinking that maybe they do! After all they need to be able to read the document.]

_________________________________________________________________

תוספות in גיטין page 4. First opinion: ר' אלעזר holds witnesses that see the giving of the  divorce doc. or the actual event of קידושין  alone count. עדי מסירה כרתי Then the second opinion של תוספות is this is only for גיטין and קידושין, not documents about money. Why? Because one can say he is obligated even though he is not, and by that become obligated. So two witnesses on a document ought to be enough to cause the document to be valid. What does this mean?  That a document of גיטין and קידושין is valid, but  for the event to happen we need witnesses of the act. That is what it seems like at first glance. But רב שך askes that that ought not to be so because רב Jeramiah says the Mishna where two גיטין were mixed up and so each is given to both women one after the other,  that משנה can not be like ר' אלעזר.  Then רב שך says if the גיטין are valid, then why not? [ [רב Jeramiah means  both have signatures on them and those are definitely לשמה. What makes that משנה not like ר'  Elazar is that those those signatures could not make the act of גיטין valid because they are not witnesses of the act of divorce. The point of רב שך is the documents themselves are valid and all that is needed is two witnesses to see the giving of them over to the two women, then why should that not be like ר' Elazar? After all there is no reason the witnesses of the act need to be לשמה. So it must be the documents themselves are not valid even with valid signatures on them unless there are witnesses that see the act.] ] So it must be that in גיטין and קידושין without witnesses seeing the actual event עדי מסירה, the doc. itself is not valid. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. I am wondering about this because witnesses on the doc. itself in general ought to know for whom it is being written. So why not also witnesses of the actual event? That is I am thinking perhaps the first way of רב שך is the right way. That the doc is valid with signed witnesses but for גיטין we need also them to see the act.

תוספות בגיטין דף ד'. דעה ראשונה: ר' אלעזר מחזיק בעדים הרואים במתן השטר והאירוע של קידושין בלבד עושים חלות הקידושין או הגט. עדי מסירה כרתי. הדעה השנייה של תוספות היא שזה רק עבור גיטין וקידושין, ולא מסמכים על כסף. למה? הודאת בעל דבר כמאה עדים דמי, ועל ידי זה להיות חייב. אז שני עדים במסמך צריכים להספיק בכדי לגרום תוקף למסמך. מה זה אומר? שמסמך של גיטין וקידושין תקף, אך בכדי שהאירוע יקרה [חלות העניין] אנו זקוקים לעדים של המעשה. כך נראה במבט ראשון. אך רב שך שואל כי זה לא צריך להיות כך משום שרב ירמיה אומר את המשנה שבה התערבבו שני גיטין ולכן כל אחד מהם ניתן לשתי הנשים אחת אחרי השנייה, כי משנה זה לא יכול להיות כמו ר' אלעזר. ואז רב שך אומר שאם הגיטין תקפים, אז למה לא? [רב ירמיה אומר ששניהם חתימות עליהם ואלה בהחלט לשמה. מה שגורם לאותה משנה להיות לא כמו ר' אלעזר הוא שאותן חתימות לא יכלו להפוך את מעשה גיטין לתקף מכיוון שהם אינם עדים למעשה הגירושין. העניין של רב שך הוא שאם המסמכים עצמם תקפים, וכל מה שצריך הוא שני עדים כדי לראות את מסירתם לשתי הנשים, אז למה זה לא יהיה כמו ר' אלעזר? אחרי הכל, אין שום סיבה שעדי המעשה עדי מסירה צריכים להיות לשמה. אז זה חייב להיות שהמסמכים עצמם אינם תקפים אפילו עם חתימות תקפות, אלא אם כן יש עדים שרואים את המעשה] אז זה חייב להיות שבגיטין ובקידושין בלי עדים שראו את האירוע בפועל עדי מסירה, השטר עצמו אינו תקף. אבי עזרי גיטין פרק א. הלכה י''ג. אני תוהה לגבי זה מכיוון שעדים על המסמך עצמו באופן כללי צריכים לדעת למי הוא נכתב. אז מדוע לא גם עדים לאירוע בפועל? כלומר אני חושב שאולי הדרך הראשונה של רב שך היא הדרך הנכונה. שהשטר תקף עם עדים חתומים, אבל בשביל גיטין אנו זקוקים גם שהם יראו את המעשה

I doubt if my dad will ever get credit for anything. But on occasion I feel like complaining about it. Once Space X introduced Starlink satellites, its value jumped from 52 billion to an astonishing 120 billion according to the Morgan Stanley report in Sept 2018. But you will never see the name of Philip Rosten who developed laser communication between satellites from the late 1960's and early 1970's [at TRW]. That is the very system that connects the Starlink satellites one to the other.

And forget about seeing his name as the leader of one of the two teams that developed the U-2 camera.

Or the inventor of the InfraRed vision system used in night vision googles and in the USA satellites that use Infra-Red [Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)].  

[The family name was Rosenblum, but he decided to change it because he was a captain in the USAF and after the war he had to interrogate Germans and sign their release papers. The trouble of signing Rosenblum hundreds of thousands of times, made him decide to shorten his name once he would get a chance.]

Transgender.

Transgender.   If a male wants to became a female the process should be simple. Just take every single cell in his body and turn the Y chromosome into an X chromosome. On the other hand, if doctors can not do that, then they can not make him into a female by simply castrating him. [Females have two X's and males have a X and Y.]

I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge

Though I am on the side of Leonard Nelson in terms of non intuitive immediate knowledge as explained in the web site of Kelley Ross.  I  think the criticism on Hegel is a bit over done. If one notices the atrocities of communism, then the best thing would be to attack Marx. Why make Hegel take the blame? 

On the other hand you might ask why do I not mention this to Kantians? Kelley Ross. Robert Hanna. Or other extremely smart philosophers nowadays? Well to be frank the fact is they are in fact very smart and very good at arguing their points. I do not stand the slightest chance of showing my point. Still I can not see that Hegel is as ridiculous as all that. Even Kelley Ross in his PhD thesis brings up two good points of Hegel twice. [About Being, and about the dialectic.]  If Hegel can be be abused, well so can the Bible. Or any system of thought about values. I can not imagine any system of thought that humans can not corrupt--no matter how perfect it is.

[There is another odd thing about all this. If you are in a classroom and the teacher gives a problem in algebra. You come up with one answer. But the the smartest kid in the class who never gets a math problem wrong comes up with a different answer. Would you not have second thoughts about raising your hand to offer your answer? I would. Well in our case, the smartest guys in the room were Carl Gauss [for Fries] and David Hilbert [for Leonard Nelson.] 

Kant Fries--seems to be on the side of Plato in terms of two levels of reality.  Hegel seems to be more along the lines of Plotinus Being leads up to Logos..[Or rather that any place one starts from leads up to Logos. 

psalms  77 and also 105 is the idea of speaking  and saying over the wonders of God. To me this seems like a clear statement about the importance of learning Physics. And I think you can see this in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam. In the first four chapters of Mishna Torah the Rambam goes into the Physics and Metaphysics as was understood by Aristotle and the later neo Platonic philosophers. And all that is contained in what the Rambam says there is to think and learn about the wonders of God to come to fear and love of God.

[Physics I think is clear what it entails. But Metaphysics? My impression is that means Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Leonard Nelson.]

The way to do this I suggest is to take a book of Mathematics and to just say the words in order from the beginning until the end with no repeats and no review until you reach the end. Then you go back to the beginning and start again  until you have finished the book  four times. In this way even a block of wood would understand Differential Calculus.

 

z22 music file

 z22 c minor

z22 in midi

 I was in Breslov today and they were learning LeM vol. I chapter 15. There the gemara is brought up where it was asked which is better Sinai or one who uproots mountains? The gemara answers Sinai is better because everyone needs wheat. That is to say which is better? One who knows all the Mishna and Gemara or one who can go deeply into any given part? Or to put it more simply: bekiut or iyun? Fast learning or in depth?

In that context I made a suggestion of a sort of combination or both in which one learns every day a page of Gemara, Tosphot and Maharsha and the next day just goes onto the next page. That way is a sort of synthesis of in depth learning --as well as one can get in one fast reading-but also makes progress. 

[I am not claiming to be doing this. I have in fact found a lot of obstacles before me when it comes to learning Torah.]

The king Solomon says in Proverbs to check out the ants and learn from its ways. How far can you take this advice? A society comprised totally of women. They are the workers and the warriors. Forget about the men. The few that there are are for a one night with the Queen Mother and then left to die. And what women. They never think of themselves. Their whole line of thought is all about the good of the collective and to do their appointed jobs. The question, "What is in it for me?" never crosses their mind.

I think on one hand the Solomon was thinking that ants in fact go about their daily tasks without being ordered or told to do so. Still the men would have little place in such a world. It is a feminist's dream-except for the problem that when another colony of feminists invades and exterminates everyone.  Feminists' murdering other feminists. Perfect. 

It is however I should note that women nowadays do not resemble female ants very much in terms of altruism.  Perhaps Solomon was suggesting that we all could learn from the altruistic ways of ants.

[But I a should mention that their altruism is limited to their own city state. They make no alliance with other colonies. Rather they wage wars of total extermination one against the other; wars that that make WWI and WWII look like child's play. And also enslave weaker members of the conquered colony. And the older one is, the more expendable she is. The ones sent into war are the old ants.]

And these little critters give the words "baby food" a whole new meaning. --as in listing the ingredients..

 We find that common knowledge is sometimes used as a kind of testimony. This is even brought in the Shut of Rav Moshe Feinstein. There is a law about milk of a gentile. However because of  אנן סהדי common knowledge, Rav Moshe allows it. []Anything other than cow's milk would receive a fine from the government so it is a  case of "we testify"--common knowledge. But that can not make a marriage or a divorce as Rav Shach notes.  Even if we would have a case of a woman brining forth her divorce document in which case we would say that she received it in a proper way, still if witnesses came and said she found it in the trash, this would not be a case of two against two. 

So I suggest אנן סהדי common knowledge, is used a legal only in the case of a derabanan., not laws from the Torah.

[You can see how this is relevant when two people are married and then divorced without all the details of divorce. Then the woman remarries. Are the children of the later marriage mamzerim? I say "No", because of the above idea that the first marriage also did not have two valid witnesses.

 I heard an interview of Peter Scholze [one of the mathematicians of this generation] about learning math, and it seems to me his advice is more related to people that are particularly talented in that area. But what if one is not talented in that area? Should one give up? I think not. You can see this in a few rishonim where Physics and Metaphysics are considered to be part of the learning sessions that one ought to do every day. [Ibn Pakuda, Rambam, and others based on those of the geonim that held this way like Saadia Geon.] This is the whole point of Rav Nahman. What does one do if he or she is not as talented as others? What about us losers? Should we give up? No. There is always hope. אין ייאוש בעולם כלל. "There is no such thing as giving up." That is how I see his method of learning of saying the words and going on. There is always hope.

[I ought to add that there are plenty of rishonim that hold one ought to learn just Torah, but I have not been able to walk in that path. I am not sure why. It is not that I think that is wrong. Rather that it just did not seem to work for me. If maybe I had stuck with it, things might have been different. But after leaving it, I could not get back in. And Rav Nahman said, "If there is one posek [note 1] to depend on, you can depend on him". [That was in response to a question of Rav Natan to him about his fear of deciding a law because of the possibility of making a mistake. ] So I decided to go along with the other rishonim that hold from the importance of Physics and Metaphysics. 

[note 1] posek: a rishon that decided the law. The word "posek" can also loosely be applied to the very early achronim. Not like today where the word is applied to anyone.]

Rav Israel Salanter on learning a lot of Musar

 The idea of Rav Israel Salanter of learning a lot of Musar seems to make sense from the standpoint that in fact good character traits--"to be  a mensch" -is the essence of Torah. However, to know what are good character traits does not seem possible without Shas. Learning Gemara in depth. So when I have  a choice, I would rather learn the Avi Ezri or Tosphot which go into the depths of the Gemara. Musar seems for me to be along the lines of orientation, rather than an actual source of knowledge. [The Chazon Ish makes this exact point in his short Musar book.]

In fact, you can see, the main positive aspect of Musar is in yeshivot where it is learned as a side dish to the main thing--Gemara, Tosphot, and Rav Chaim from Brisk or the Avi Ezri. 

[Though I admit that learning a lot of the Hafetz Haim about the laws of Lashon Hara would make a lot of sense.]