What makes Israel difficult are the internal conflicts. Ashkenazi versus  Sephardi. Religious versus secular, etc. These conflicts are not intellectual but play themselves out on the ground level. Any one of one group that ventures into an area of the other group is guaranteed to find himself the focus of lots of attention and effort to get rid of him. These efforts are sometimes simple shunning of lack of being helpful. Sometimes these efforts are less veiled and amount to downright sabotage of one's welling place or actual physical violence.
Then on the other hand there are the occasional do good-ers who realize that this kind of thing often results in throwing out the wrong kind of people-people that in fact would be good to have around.

[This is not to say that sometimes it is  a good idea to get rid of criminal elements.]

The result of all this is often when one is making "Aliya" he finds himself in an unexpected situation where people he thought were his friends [and in fact when they came to the USA to collect money always presented themselves as his best friends] turn out to be his most bitter and determined enemies.
[It is hard to know what to make of all this. The nicest period I had was when I was invited to join Rav Ernster. He had been offered by the State of Israel a set of buildings --on condition he could fill them. So I was invited to live there and join the learning group. That was a really glorious seven years. Later attempts to make it there fell flat and were somewhat disastrous also. I was a loner and people made it clear in short order that I was not wanted.]

Outside of the great Ponoviz yeshiva  and maybe  few other places like the Yeshiva of the Gra of Rav Silverman, the main problem in Israelis simple. The religious are insane. I mean literally insane.

Of course just being insane as long as one does not harm others is not so terrible. The trouble is the religious do as much harm as they can.

learning Gemara and Naphtali Yeager in Shar Yashuv [NY]

I realize there are two ways of learning Gemara.  One way really started with Naphtali Yeager in Shar Yashuv [NY] which is for lack of  a better word "the hedgehog approach." This is very recent, but I imagine it goes back to some distant beginning, but was forgotten. It is a kind of tenacious putting your nose to the ground, and once you grab something, not to let go--no matter what.
The other way is well known. It is the eagle approach. Or what I like to call the global approach. This is called by the name of Reb Haim [Soloveitchik], but it also goes back in time to previous beginnings. It reached it climax and peak perfection in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach. Some people I imagine still think the Reb Haim is better than Rav Shach, but I just can not see that.
The first approach I had almost completely forgotten about until I encountered it again in David Bronson. [It forms the basis of my book on Bava Metzia.] I have no idea if anyone else in the world learns like that, but I have heard that some people do (here and there), and they call it לחשבן את הסוגיא "to calculate the subject."

How does either of these two approaches have anything to so with Rishonim (mediaeval authorities) or "later on" people [later on means after circa 1520] like the Pnei Yehoshua or  the Kezot HaHoshen, I do not know. I was exposed to all four approaches, and yet never really got the hang of it. The people that come after the Rishonim {mediaeval commentaries} seem to occupy their own particular niche. Certainly you can see a big difference between the Pnei Yehoshua and the book חידושי הרמב''ם of Reb Haim.
Though I found the slow prodding approach of Naftali Yegger and David Bronson to be excruciating, I still think it has the most going for it. [In the Mir in NY, the hedgehog approach was completely unknown.They were all absolutely into the "global approach." Only in Israel did I hear that in some isolated spots the "to calculate the sugia" path was known and practiced.

You might ask then what does this all mean in practice? I would have to answer the the "to calculate the sugia" approach-the hedgehog, needs a high IQ. Since I am not smart, then without a genius leaning partner, it just is not possible. The best idea after that is the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the entire school of Reb Haim, that is him and his disciples. [Even my book on Bava Metzia is just answering questions raised by David Bronson, but I never would have been able to see the issues at all without his raising the difficulties. ]


[What one might do is this. To get the book of Reb Haim Soloveitchik and the Avi Ezri and Naftali Troup and just go through them straight.  In a separate session to just go through the Gemara  itself with Tosphot, Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua.. ]

The Civil War

To me, the war between the states [the Civil War] is a very important part of American history because its tells me a lot more about the USA than the Constitution or any other part of USA history. To erase it means to erase half of the core principles  of the USA.

My basic idea about the USA come from history before the founding fathers. That is the way I conceive of it. I mean I look at the war between Sparta and Athens and realize how tragic that was. Then I look at Rome. Then England in the 1700's. I see in all this- conflicting principles each one important in itself yet when put together they all conflict. Then I look at the USA Constitution and realize the effort put into it to get a synthesis between conflicting principles. But to see the results I look at the civil war to understand what happens when the synthesis falls apart.

I may not be explaining this properly but I am just trying to give a rough idea of how I think of the USA.

[There are a great deal of principles and ideals that go into the making of the USA Constitution. The most important idea comes from the Talmud--the idea that the commandments have reasons that are known and knowable. Natural Law. Though never said openly in the Talmud in that many words, it was expressed simply thus by Saadia Gaon and Maimonides. Thomas Aquinas developed this further. Finally  John Locke came along and Parliamentary system in England with its own range of disastrous civil wars and conflicts. So to put all the ideas into a workable system I see as one of the most remarkable successes  in Human history. ]


[The odd thing here is that the philosophical foundations of Aquinas and John Locke a a bit weak. Aquinas as all medieval  thought take things as axioms that just do not see right. John Locke also. The obvious thing to do would be to look at more rigorous and exact philosophical thought--the German Idealists. But that does not seem to get very far. The puzzle is this: Why does the USA system work, and not just work but seem to work a thousand times better than anything else. Even though other systems seem to be base on much more exact and rigorous thought?  ]

Not that Marx was all that rigorous.The best thing in terms of Philosophy is the Kant Friesian school based on Kant and Leonard Nelson and that is certainly supportive of American Democracy and individual rights.

However to me everything seems to depend on DNA. I simply can not see that a USA kind of democracy would have been able to deal with the problems in czarist Russia. Nor in any population with a large percentage of criminal DNA. For societies that are not WASP, clearly something else is need to keep the peace. To me it is clear  that nothing would have or could have worked in Russia except a czar or the USSR. Nothing even close to the American system could have or can work. The trouble is simple. Too many crooks. When there there just too much criminal DNA in the blood,  you need an absolutist central government.

Hell, or Gehinom. [A great deal of human activity is to get distracted from the all important subject of Hell. That almost everything of what goes on in the world are tricks from the Sitra Akra/Dark Side to distract people from what really matters.]

גהינום Gehinom is really a very important subject. After all eternity is a long time to be tormented by demons in hell. Especially for people like me that have a low tolerance for pain. I must have mentioned once before my basic idea of Gehinom [hell]  and how to avoid it mainly comes from Reb Israel Salanter and his disciple Rav Isaac Blazzer. In one word it can all be summed up : Midot.

"Midot" means basically what my parents meant by the words "to be a mench." The basic idea is rather simple. Do not lie, do not cheat and do not steal.

[In high school I saw the same idea in one of my favorite books, Dante (The Divine Comedy ), who lays out the structure of Hell quite clearly. Later I saw the same basic idea in the very great  Musar book ראשית חכמה [Beginning of Wisdom]. [In the back in the additions, not in the book itself.]

In any case the idea is incredibly simple --have good traits--or else suffer the consequences.
And I have to add that in fact you can see this by implication in the Rambam. He gives the basic reasons for the commandments of Torah, and one is "midot" (to have good traits). The implication is that  what is going to matter in the long run--when one arrives at the seat of judgement in Heaven. What is going to matter then is not how strict one was in rituals whose only purpose is to remind one to have good traits. What is going to matter is midot tovot (good traits).
[A great deal of human activity is to get distracted from the all important subject of Hell. That almost everything of what goes on in the world are tricks from the Sitra Akra/Dark Side to distract people from what really matters.]

Even though keeping Torah is very important, I still feel once in a while to warn people about the religious world which pretends to keep Torah, but in fact is quite opposite to Torah.  A few words of warning I guess ought to suffice since this is not a very happy subject for me. Still the warning still is written in Torah, אל תעמוד על דמך רעיך. [Thou shalt not stand by as the blood of your neighbor is split.]

Which amazingly enough is in the same context as the commandment not to speak lashon hara/slander. The obvious implication is sometimes you need to warn people about some unknown danger even though it might seem to be lashon hara. (That is n my mind the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication.)

So  run from any group that  displays its religiosity. The more they appear religious, the worse they are.

If they display religiosity or claim religious authority, you know something is rotten in them that is just waiting  to crawl out of them and attach itself to you.

Background -to Rabbainu. Tam twilight starts 58.5 minutes after sunset and night 72 min. The morning is the same. dawn עלות השחר is 72 min., and נץ החמה is an hour before sunrise.
The Gemara in Shabat has a long description of how the sky changes at the beginning of the night. The way the Gemara describes it makes no sense if you think the night starts at 13.5 minutes after sundown. There are then no changes in the sky that the Gemara talks about.. But if you think like Rabbainu Tam, the Gemara makes perfect sense as you can see by this coming paragraph which I wrote having in mind an audience of people that know the Gemara in Shabat.




I was in Israel a few years and  I saw something that confirmed the approach of ר''ת concerning the time the night starts. That is, for the first 59 minutes after sunset, nothing dramatic changes in the sky. The sky  becomes  dark. Then right at 59 minutes something dramatic happens. A kind of dome forms over the area where the sun went down. Then that dome itself begins to sink until at exactly 72 minutes it sinks below the horizon, and the sky is dark. You can see how this corresponds to the גמרא in שבת. There is also something about what you call average. The word average has no meaning except as compared to something else. Thus the number 5 is average between 0 and 10, but not average compared to 100 and 1,000,000. So to be able to determine or measure what is an average star you need to see what all stars in the middle of the night. Once you see all the stars that can be seen by the naked eye, then you pick three medium stars. Then you learn how to identify them by learning thoroughly the map of the sky. One needs to learn to identify the constellations and the place of each star in a constellation. Then after you know what is a medium star, you go out and see on some night when it becomes visible. Three are visible at 72 minutes.

However stars that are seen a half hour after sunset when you compare them with other stars in the middle of the night are not medium stars. They are giants compared to all the others. They are what the גמרא calls large stars. Large stars do not tell you when the night begins. Only three medium stars.
In terms of stars, I also saw something there and also in desert regions in Israel. No stars are seen at sunset. None. So if twilight begins at sunset, where are the two medium stars? According to the גמרא, twilight begins when one average star is seen, not large stars which can be seen before then. So it is curious that at sunset, no large large stars, nor average stars are visible. That seems to knock the idea of בין השמשות  beginning at that time.

הייתי בישראל כמה שנים וראיתי משהו שאישר את הגישה של ר''ת בדבר הזמן שמתחיל הלילה. כלומר, עבור 59 הדקות הראשונות לאחר השקיעה, אין שינויים דרמטיים בשמים. השמים הופכים כהים. ואז ב59 דקות קורה משהו דרמטי. סוג של צורות כיפה נעשה מעל האזור שבו שקעה החמה. ואז כי הכיפה עצמה מתחילה לשקוע עד בדיוק 72 דקות הוא שוקע מתחת לאופק, והשמים כהים לגמרי. אתה יכול לראות איך זה מתאים לגמרא בשבת. יש גם משהו על מה שאתה קורא ממוצע. למילה "ממוצע" אין שום משמעות מלבד לעומת משהו אחר. לכן מספר 5 הוא ממוצע בין 0 ו10, אבל לא ממוצע לעומת 100 ו1,000,000. אז כדי להיות מסוגל לקבוע או למדוד מהו כוכב ממוצע אתה צריך לראות כל הכוכבים באמצע הלילה. ברגע שאתה רואה את כל הכוכבים שניתן לראות בעין בלתי מזוינת, אז אתה בוחר שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. אז אתה לומד לזהות אותם על ידי לימוד יסודי של מפת השמים. אחד צריך ללמוד לזהות את הכוכבים ואת המקום של כל כוכב בקונסטלציה. ואז אחרי שאתה יודע מה הוא כוכב בינוני, אתה יוצא לראות באיזה לילה כאשר הוא הופך להיות גלוי. שלושה גלויים ב72 דקות. עם זאת, הכוכבים שנראים חצי שעה אחרי השקיעה, כאשר אתה משווה אותם עם כוכבים אחרים באמצע הלילה הם לא כוכבים ממוצעים. הם ענקים לעומת כל האחרים. הם מה שהגמרא קוראה כוכבים גדולים. כוכבים גדולים לא אומרים לך כאשר הלילה מתחיל. רק שלושה כוכבים ממוצעים. במונחים של כוכבים, ראיתי גם משהו שם גם באזורים מדבריים בישראל. אין כוכבים נראים בשקיעה. אף אחד. אז אם בין השמשות מתחיל בשקיעה, איפה הם שני כוכבים בינוניים? על פי הגמרא, בין השמשות מתחיל כאשר כוכב ממוצע אחד נראה, לא כוכבים גדולים אשר ניתן לראות לפני כן. אז זה מעניין כי בשקיעה, אין כוכבים גדולים, ולא כוכבים ממוצעים גלויים. זה סותר את הרעיון שבין השמשות מתחיל באותה עת..

I was in Safed a few years and made it a point to be near the grave of Rav Isaac Luria around sunset.

And pretty much every day I saw something that confirmed the approach of Rabbainu Tam concerning the time the night starts.

That is for the first 59 minutes after sunset, nothing dramatic changes in the sky except for it slowly getting  darker. Then right at 59 minutes something dramatic happens. A kind of dome forms over the area where the sun went down. Then that dome itself begins to sink until at exactly 72 minutes it sink below the horizon and the sky is consistently dark. [You can see how this corresponds to the Gemara in Shabat.]


There is also something about what you call "medium." The word medium has no meaning except as compared to something else. This the number 5 is medium between 0 an 10 but not medium compared to 100 and 1000000. So to be able to gauge what is a medium star you need to first get an idea of what all stars look like in the middle of the night. Once you see all the stars that can be seen by the naked eye, then you pick three medium stars. Then you learn how to identify them by learning thoroughly the map of the sky. That is to learn to identify the constellations and the place of each star in a constellation. Then after you know what is a medium star, you go out and see on some night when it becomes visible. Three are visible at 72 minutes.
However stars that are seen a half hour after sunset when you compare them with other stars in the middle of the night are not medium stars. They are giants compared to all the others. They are what the Gemara calls large stars. Large stars do not tell you when the night begins. Only three medium stars.



In terms of stars I also saw something there and also in desert regions in Israel. No stars are seen at sunset. None. So if twilight begins at sunset, where are the two medium stars? According to the Gemara twilight begins when one medium star is seen, not large stars which can be seen before then. So it is curious that at sunset no large large stars, nor medium stars are visible. That seems to knock the idea of twilight beginning at that time.

The main task in life is to find the right principles to hold onto, the right subjects to learn, the right books to read, the right institutions to support.

The Obligations of the Heart {חובות לבבות} holds there can be individual obligations that are not required of everyone. So the above list can be divided into personal obligations and obligations that are upon all.


My own search has resulted in some conclusions and some areas remain ambiguous.
Right principles:  Speak the truth no matter what you think the consequence may be. This provides an אור מקיף Surrounding light or surrounding force field that evil can not penetrate. Obviously being careful about Lashon Hara is important but to me it is unclear when it is required to warn others.
Right subjects: The Oral and Written Law (Gemara, Tosphot and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri), Math Physics, Music.
Institutions is a hard one.  I am very impressed with the Mir in NY and the other great Litvak Yeshivas in NY and Ponoviz in Bnei Brak.

[Though the Rambam emphasized the Metaphysics of Aristotle, I just can not see why. Though I have great interest in the subject, I can not see much that comes out of it. From what I can tell the best thing in Metaphysics is Leonard Nelson's continuation of Kant which in Europe is called the Critical school and in the USA it is called the Kant-Friesian School. The reason this stream of thought gets no attention in academia, I think is that they are a little over the top when it comes to criticizing Hegel or Heidegger. תפסת מרובה לא תפסת they grab too much. That is: they claim Hegel has nothing to say; and that simply is not the case. They ought to satisfy themselves  that they have an important continuation of Kant's thought that answers many of the problems and also makes considerable progress.


The Ran of Breslov also emphasized "תיקון הברית" sexual purity and it seems to me  he was quite right about that. He also recommended what he called the תיקון הכללי. That is if one has spilled seed in vain to say that same day these ten psalms in order without interruption 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.  (and to intend the Divine name אל אלהים in full which is אלף למד אלף למד הי יוד מם)

My feeling about marriage.-- good genes and DNA

My feeling about marriage.

And a lot depends on good genes and DNA. I mean to say that perhaps some aspects of her traits might be hard --but DNA is stronger than picked up  traits. So if her DNA is good then you might overlook attitudes picked up from her environment.

This was obvious to me when I was very young. The issue might be race. After all, some races have a predominance of criminal DNA. It might have to do with faith. But in elementary school and high school, I realized that determining good genes from bad genes is not simple. There are not a lot of obvious signs.
This is why in Anglo Saxon countries an emphasis was placed on looking at the family of the prospective bride. But in high school, how could I tell who came from a good family? To to be honest, I looked at the only criteria that was available to me: good grades.

[Though I can not tell how much this had to do with whom I picked to hang out with. A lot of who my friends were seemed to depend more on who picked me. That was certainly the case with my first set of friends--the string quartet. They definitely picked me -not visa versa. I even remember the exact moment. We were on an orchestra tour in Vancouver. And the elite of the high school, the top brass-invited me to sit down with them. I still have no idea why. I was mediocre in grades, and also in playing the violin.

Later, the actual girl I did marry, in fact had a straight A average (and came from a very fine family), but our relationship in those days was with zero romantic interest. We were simply friends. Only after I disappeared off the horizon because I went to Yeshiva in NY, did her interest in me begin to take on a different kind of aspect.

The irony is that by that time I was not looking at genes or DNA, but whom was the Rosh Yeshiva's daughter [whom I did not get].  So I actually married someone that was very much along the lines of my original intention--good family and good DNA (thank God). That was in spite of the fact that at that time I was not looking at that at all.

The Mishna {Bava Metzia page 100-a} brings a case:  a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth before or after the deal. So who owns the calf?
The Gemara asks why is there a question? Just say it belongs to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Lets give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס It is Somhos [or Rather it is Sumhos].
[Sumhos holds money in doubt is divided. The Sages on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of Gemara is "Rather it is Sumhos," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is Sumhos" is right then, that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the mishna is like Sumhos. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean Sumhos would agree with חזקת רשות







If your version of the Gemara is Bava Metzia [page 100] is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The Rashbam is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to Bava Batra page 34 in this way. The Rashbam holds there is  migo for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. Rav and Shmuel decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The Rashbam holds the reason is that there is a migo. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the Rashbam. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this migo be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the Migo.
This would depend on the Tosphot in Nida if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.






_________________________________________________________________________________
The משנה בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א  brings a case in which a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth. Before or after the deal? So who owns the calf?
The גמרא asks why is there a question? Should not it  to belong to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Let's give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס. It is סומכוס [or Rather it is סומכוס].
[סומכוס holds money in doubt is divided. The חכמים on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of גמרא  is "Rather it is סומכוס," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is סומכוס", that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the משנה is like סומכוס. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean סומכוס would agree with חזקת רשות
__________________________________________________________________________________



If your version of the גמרא is בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The רשב''ם is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to בבא בתרא ל''ד in this way. The רשב''ם holds there is  מיגו for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. רב and שמואל decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The רשב''ם holds the reason is that there is a מיגו. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the רשב''ם. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this מיגו be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the מיגו.
This would depend on the תוספות in נידה דף ב' ע''ב if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.


המשנה בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א מביאה מקרה שבו אדם קונה פרה ונתגלה כי זו הולידה עגל. אנחנו לא יודעים מתי זה קרה. לפני או אחרי העסקה? אז מי הבעלים של עגל? הגמרא שואלת למה יש שאלה? הלא זה אמור להיות שייך לאדם אשר בתחומו  הוא נמצא? תשובה: זה בסמטה. שאלה: בואו לתת אותו לבעל הראשון? תשובה: הא מני סומכוס. זהו סומכוס [או אלא זה סומכוס]. סומכוס מחזיק כסף בספק מחולק. החכמים סוברים מצד שני שהחוק הוא: "אם לקחת כסף מתוך התחום שלו דורשת הוכחה]. אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא. 'במקום זה הוא סומכוס,' הכוונה שהיא חוזרת בה מן התשובה של הסמטה. אבל אם הגרסה היא "זהו סומכוס", הכוונה כי היינו נותנים לו לבעלים הראשונים משום שהמשנה היא כמו סומכוס. זה משאיר את התשובה של הסמטה במקומה. זה אומר סומכוס יסכים עם חזקת רשות.


אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא (בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א) הא מני סונכוס או אלא הא מני סומכוס הוא עושה את ההבדל אם סומכוס מסכים עם  חזקת ממון (חזקתרשות) או לא. אם הגרסה "הא מני סומכוס" זה אומר סומכוס מסכים עם חזקת ממון (חזקת רשות). רשב''ם הוא פוסק החוק הוא כמו סומכוס. זה קשור לבבא בתרא ל''ד בדרך זו. הרשב''ם מחזיק יש מיגו עבור האדם  שתפס את נסכא דר' אבא, (הוא יכול לטעון שמעולם לא תפס כלום). במקום זאת הוא מודה כי הוא תפס אותו אבל הוא טוען החפץ שייך לו. רב ושמואל החליט שהחוק הוא האדם אשר תפס אותו ניתן לקחת אותו. רשב''ם מחזיקה הסיבה היא שיש מיגו. אבל נראה לי שיש סיבה נוספת עבור רשב''ם.  אחרת למה  המיגו הזה  חזק מספיק כדי להשאיר את החפץ ברשותו של האחד שתפס את הנסכא. אבל (מצד שני) אפשר לטעון כי חזקת ממון כאן באמת תיתן את האובייקט לאדם שבמקור היה לו הנסכא. אז זה יכול להיות כי סומכוס לא הולך עם חזקת ממון וכאן הם היו חולקים  את כמות הכסף ששווה הנסכא אם לא היה מיגו. כל זה  תלוי תוספות בנידה דף ב' ע''ב אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה של עכשיו שווות או אם חזקה מעיקרא הוא חזקה. אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה נראה כי זו תחול במקרה זה על של נסכא דר" אבא כי היינו אומרים חזקת ממון תלך לאדם הראשון שממנו האובייקט נתפס.

There are a few valid basic interpretations of Rav Isaac Luria Ashkenazi. The Gra, the Ramhal, Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira [grandfather of Bava Sali], and the Reshash [Shalom Sharabi]
The Ramchal has a concept that the השתלשלות  of the עולמות refers to time.
That means that Being in order to reveal itself creates and then uses time to reveal existing things.
Time is the window into existence.


[Most people know of the Ramhal [Rav Moshe Haim Luzato author or the מסילת ישרים Mesilat Yesharim]  one of the most basic and essential Musar books].

But to get attached to authentic Torah, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the Gra are very important.

Reb Nahman made a point about being connected with the "authentic tzadik"--which is in fact an  insightful observation.

[Reb Nahman also had some other very important ideas like התבודדות talking with God  in one' own language as one speaks to a friend, and learning fast.]

Music for the praise of God

U-81 B Flat Major

The Avi Ezri of Rav Shach;- authentic Torah. Reveals the essence of Torah.

Since I love package deals, and learning the whole Oral Law is time consuming,  my recommendation is to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which contains the basic core of what it means to learn Gemara.
This way in learning even just a few pages one gets the idea of what it means "to learn Torah."

You really do not get this by learning just Gemara and Tosphot unless you are blessed with the ability to see beneath the surface. With Rav Shach however, it is all laid out in front of you.

You might try also Reb Haim Soloveitchik's חידושי הרמב''ם (which people call "Hidushai Reb Haim"), but I found Rav Shach's book to be better for me.
The great thing about Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is it is authentic Torah. It reveals the essence of what learning Torah is all about.

[I myself am generally incapable of that deep kind of learning. I was exposed to it at the Mir but even there I never got the hang of it. Then when I was learning with David Bronson, I saw him spontaneously uncovering the issues in the Gemara and at that point I began to be able to address the issues and sometimes even answer the questions. But unless you yourself have that kind of head or have a genius learning partner, the only way I know of getting into this kind of depth is with the Avi Ezri. You need a special kind of ability to see beyond the surface level of things to be able to do this on your own.]
[There are other books that can help fill in the big picture; i.e.,  Reb Haim's disciples and Reb Naftali Troup. But the Avi Ezri goes deeper and is also clearer.]

And can virtue be taught?

What is the proper education? And can virtue be taught? And does  education need re-adjustment as one leaves high school or college?

When I was young, I had a book about Abraham Lincoln that emphasized the fact that he was self taught,-- and that is definitely how I think about this issue.

However that is not to dismiss the need  for good learning partners.

In any case. my basic idea about education is that it does not stop after one leaves high school or college. Plus the basic structure I think should revolve around the four point system of Maimonides The Written Law (Bible), The Oral Law (Gemara and Tosphot), Physics, Metaphysics (by that the Rambam is referring to Plato and Aristotle).
My parents would add to this survival skills, outdoor skills, and learning a vocation. But Rav Shach I think would agree with all the above except the last one. From what I understood he held one should just sit and learn Torah until one gets married and at that point to simply take whatever profession that presents itself. And he certainly held one is allowed to receive the stipend that the State of Israel offers to anyone that wants to simply sit and learn [in some מסגרת or group].

[Allen Bloom and Allen Sokol have already pointed out the vacuum and emptiness of the humanities departments of universities .Allen Sokol wrote a paper of shear utter nonsense and it was accepted and published by a prestigious Philosophy quarterly. magazine-mainly because the jargon was right.

[The Metaphysics of the Rambam does not contradict the idea of learning the Ari and the Remak [Moshe of Cordoba ]. After all the Ari is really a more detailed version of the Neo Platonic System of Plotinus.]

[I can not say what the Rambam is getting at with his emphasis on Metaphysics. Though I am interested in the subject I can not see how coming to love and fear of God depend on learning Aristotle! But I say to myself that I figure the Rambam was a little more bright than me.]

[From what I can see universities are doing very well when it come to Physics for those who are talented but for those people like me that are not talented I think the best idea is to learn (like the Gemara says in Shabat 63 דרך  גירסא) to learn by just saying the words and going on.]

[The Gra held one ought to learn the Trivium and Quadrivium as mentioned by his disciple Rav Baruck from Shkolov who translated Euclid. ]

Praise be to God, the creator and source of all being.

U-80 mp3 U-80 midi   U-80 nwc

The Mir Yeshiva [of NY] approach

The Mir Yeshiva approach entails a large degree of humility. That is to say the awareness we really do not know how to teach or learn morality nor any of the big issues. The point is simple, "Learn Torah and act on what you have learned." There is no claim to supernatural powers or supernatural understanding of hidden things.
In fact most roshei yeshiva have a simple line they all say when asked about any subject what so ever that is not directly contained in the Gemara: "It is high things/ הויכע זכין." That is;- they plead  ignorance

But besides the basic line "Learn Torah", Reb Shmuel Berenbaum did have a few other things that were important to him,-- and he would say when asked. He held strongly of being in seder [session]. He held strongly about not speaking bad about anyone. That is he was not particularly interested in something was actually lashon hara [slander] or not in terms of the legal definition. And he held strongly of doing kindness when anyone was in need.

[On the other hand the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication seems to indicate that sometimes a few words of warning are in order.]





But for politics, philosophy, or anything else -  the general approach was "We do not know. So let's just sit and learn."




[I am not saying that this is my approach. I have opinions about everything under the sun. But I think the Mir approach is probably better. To me it seems the Rambam and Saadia Gaon thought the Neo Platonic approach was important enough and essential enough to Torah to write about it.]

Reb Shmuel did not hold highly however of university education. I asked him once about that and his answer was it is OK if it is to make a living.

The grandchildren of Rav David Abuzeira go to a yeshiva in Bnei Brak named after Avraham Kalmonoviz the founder of the Mir in NY --so I figure that is saying something.

Bava Batra 34

The case of the נסכא של ר' אבא is that a person grabbed an object from another person and one witness saw it. The person that grabbed the object said, "Yes I grabbed it but it is mine." R, Aba holds the law since he can not take an oath he must pay. מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם. He can not take an oath because he  agrees with the witness that he grabbed it.

The Ri holds in the case of the נסכא של ר' אבא that there is no migo because if he would deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath. [The Migo here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him.  So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the Ri says this is not a good migo is that if he would  deny that he grabbed the object he would have to take an oath.]The Rivam holds there is a migo because otherwise why would Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba? And the Rivam holds the reason R. Aba  does not go with the migo is because of גזרת הכתוב. So then what could the Ri answer to this?  I think the Ri would answer that the reason Rav and Shmuel disagree with R. Aba is not because of a migo but because of חזקת ממון.

The fact of the matter is that the Ri you can see holds that Rav and Shmuel do not think like סומכוס.
The Rashbam does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the Ri would agree.

( I am just mentioning this because you can see this relates to Bava Metzia pg 100. The Ri you can see holds the person that originally held the object is not called מרא קמא here because there is a doubt if it belonged to him. But in any case if the law would be like סומכוס that would מרא קמא would not help anything anyway and they would have to divide. So at least we can agree that the Ri is not holding like סומכוס]





_______________________________________________________________________________



The case of the נסכא של ר' אבא is that a person grabbed an object from another person and one witness saw it. The person that grabbed the object said, "Yes I grabbed it, but it is mine." ר' אבא holds the law since he can not take an oath he must pay. מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם. He can not take an oath because he is  agrees with the witness. The ר''י holds in the case of the נסכא  של ר' אבא that there is no מיגו because if he would deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.
[The מיגו here is he could deny that he grabbed the object and we would believe him.  So we should believe him when he admits that he grabbed it, but he claims the object belongs to him. The reason the ר''י says this is not a good מיגו is that if he would  deny that he grabbed the object, he would have to take an oath.]
The ריב''ם holds there is a מיגו, because otherwise why would רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא? And the ריב''ם holds the reason ר' אבא  does not go with the מיגו is because of גזירת הכתוב. So then what could the ר''י answer to this?  I think the ר''י would answer that the reason רב and שמואל disagree with ר' אבא is not because of a מיגו, but because of חזקת ממון. However the ריב''ם would not hold that חזקת ממון would be a good answer because the object was originally in the possession of the other person.

The fact of the matter is that the ר''י you can see holds that רב and שמואל do not think like סומכוס.
The רשב''ם does hold the law is like סומכוס but you can see here that it is unlikely that the ר''י would agree.


המקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא הוא שאדם תפס חפץ מאדם אחר, ועד אחד ראה את זה. האדם שתפס את האובייקט אמר, "כן תפסתי אותו, אך הוא שלי." ר' אבא מחזיק את החוק הוא שהוא לא יכול להישבע, ולכן הוא חייב לשלם. "מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם." הוא לא יכול להישבע כי הוא מסכים עם העד. הר''י מחזיק במקרה של נסכא של ר' אבא כי אין מיגו כי אם הוא יכחיש שהוא תפס את החפץ, הוא יצטרך לקחת שבועה. הריב''ם מחזיק ישנה מיגו, כי אחרת למה רב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא? וגם הריב''ם מחזיק שהסיבה שר' אבא לא הולך עם המיגו היא בגלל גזירת הכתוב. אז מה יכול הר''י לענות על זה? אני חושב הר''י היה עונה כי הסיבה שרב ושמואל לא מסכימים עם ר' אבא הוא לא בגלל מיגו, אלא בגלל חזקת ממון. אולם ריב''ם לא יחזיק כי חזקת ממון תהיה תשובה טובה כי האובייקט היה במקורו ברשותו של האדם האחר.

אתה יכול לראות שהר''י סובר כי רב ושמואל לא חושבים כמו סומכוס. הרשב''ם מחזיק בשיטה שהחוק הוא כמו סומכוס אבל אתה יכול לראות כאן כי אינו  סביר שהר''י יסכים

Music for the glory of God.

U-79 D Major

The King of Judah, Ahaz, invited the king of Assyria to fight against Israel [the Ten Tribes] and Syria. But the policy of Assyria did not change after that. Even though the original alliance was a success, the later king of Assyria just continued his war against Israel until he exiled Israel into the land of  Medea [East of Assyria]. After that the kings of Assyria just continued their old policy and then invaded Judah, and then finally tried to conquer Jerusalem itself. The event  the Assyria army being wiped out at that point is well known. But the fact that Assyria was first invited in by the King of Judah is less well known. [See Kings 16]

Be careful whom you ask for help from. Alliances are important but with whom to make an alliance is something not simple.  [Since reading Thucydides I have been aware of how important alliances are. But the events surrounding the fall of the Ten Tribes shows how much care  one needs in determining with whom to form an alliance. ]

The all-women engineering team that designed the ill-fated pedestrian foot bridge at Miami’s Florida International University were highly touted for their advances in a field that is typically dominated by men.

The all-women engineering team that designed the ill-fated pedestrian foot bridge at Miami’s Florida International University were highly touted for their advances in a field that is typically dominated by men.

But critics are pointing the finger of blame at the female engineers for design flaws that may have brought the bridge down.


Investigators are still on the scene of last week’s bridge collapse that killed 6 peopleple and injured 9 on the FIU campus in Southwest Miami.


My learning partner suggested this same reason for the cutting back of the Space Program after the Lunar Landings. I mean to say the later accidents were because of promoting incompetent people--so instead of changing the policy to have only white, male engineers,- they simply cut back the program.

[Promoting people that are competent is what ought to be the measuring stick. It should not matter if they are white or male or Martians. The problem is promoting people because they are female or some color other than white. ]

Even though the mystic writings are not supposed to be the basis of Torah, they have assumed a degree of confidence that questioning them is thought to be tantamount to a capital crime.
This was pointed out to me by my learning partner that the Ramban [Nahmanides] is the start of the most fanatic forms of Torah observance. The Rambam [Maimonides] forms the basis of a whole different kind of approach--which never really took off.--the more rational approach.

The mystic "thing" certainly is brought to the attention of anyone at the first step into the world of fanaticism.

One thing that is curious about the mystic thing is that most of the ideas come from the pre-Soctratics. That does not disqualify anything, but makes it less probable that it is Torah from Sinai.

There is nothing innocent about this. It is the pretense to secret knowledge that is used to further personal ambitions and those that suppose and project their own superiority.
Among the signs of idol worship is the ingenious variety of techniques devised to advance the human ambitions in the name of God.

The trouble is rewriting Oral and Written Torah which has been revealed and recorded once and for all time, and with the dangers of misleading others, seeming to claim spiritual merit for oneself, or indulging in simple self-aggrandizement. 

[However I do have confidence in the insights of the Ari and other great tzadikim like the Gra and Rav Shach of Ponoviz.]

I have already written an essay a long time ago showing the ten sepherot to the 10 spheres around the earth in the Ptolemy Model, and the "Contraction" and drawing down of the light to the pre Socratics.

The empty space is one of the most remarkable ideas in the Ari and yet the original concept comes from Anaximader. Nevertheless it is a potent and important idea as note by Heidegger. In fact the original  seems to have been forgotten by Metaphysics until Heidegger noticed it. The empty space--or negative transcendence was merely conceived as a background for existing things. It was forgotten to ask and understand what it is in itself.  [What Heidegger and the Rav Isaac Luria were asking was what allows existing things to come into existence in the first place. Now what do existing things have in common.]

It is natural for people to wonder about the meaning of life. Some feel the need more than others, but it is fairly common. [Some people however could not care less.] The Talmud does not deal with meaning of life issues, so it is natural for people to look into the Zohar.  The elephant in the room is the problem that the Zohar is a forgery. It is not what it claims to be. If from the start it had been made clear that  saying over the ideas in the name of R Shimon ben Yohai was just a literary device, that is no big deal. But presenting it as actually being from R Shimon ben Yohai I think has to be considered less than honest.
The thing that makes it clear to me is עם כל דא a translation of עם כל זה. And עם כל זה is a phrase invented by the Ibn Tibon family of translators to take the place of "although". Before that ''although'' was אף על פי or אף על גב


[ I have however confidence that the Ari and Rav Yaakov Abuhaziera and Shalom Sharabi had important insights. Much of their ideas come from other sources --their own personal service towards God and other mystic books that came before the Zohar for example Sefer Yezira. There were plenty of mystics around during the Middle Ages.

[In any case , did you ever see anyone improve in their traits after learning the Zohar?]]

Music for the glory of God

U-78 C Major mp3 u-78 midi   u78 nwc

Litvak yeshivas on השקפה world view issues

There is little or no emphasis in Litvak yeshivas on השקפה world view issues. The accepted approach is  simple: whatever the Torah says, that is what we believe.
The emphasis is on learning Torah. This goes along well with the idea expressed in Bava Batra ברא יצר הרע ברא תורה תבלין.[God created the Evil Inclination but he also created Torah as a cure for it.] As R.Gershom explains there. Everyone has an opportunity to be delivered from the hands of the evil inclination. ילמד תורה ויהיה צדיק Learn Torah and you will be a righteous person.


[My own interest in world view issues is mainly personal. I realize not a lot of people share this interest with me. Still it seems important to get it right.]

 The basic Mir Yeshiva approach "Learn Torah" seems a lot more important to me than world view issues. Just for clarity I should add "Learning Torah" means basically to take one tracatate of Gemara and to do to thoroughly for about a year with every single Tosphot. The "later on" people like the Pnei Yehoshua and Maharsha also seem very important to me even though neither one is emphasized in yeshivas. [I do not want to give the idea that I understood the Maharsha or Pnei Yehoshua. I would try to review the particular paragraph each about ten times  or more and still only get a vague idea of what they meant.]

The Gemara is not "Politically Correct".

To say in the Gemara Bava Batra pg 14b that "Moses wrote his book and the section on Bilaam and the Book of Job," seems to imply that he did not write the rest. This is just one example of many things I noticed in the Gemara and Rishonim that are not sensitive to people's sensibilities. The Gemara is not "Politically Correct".

The Rambam's high recommendation of Aristotle also is  not PC [politically correct].  It seems to fly in the face of the Gemara itself.

Natural Law and Natural Rights

I did not realize that Dr Kelley Ross had written a letter to the NY Post about an article attacking the Second Amendment. I did not even know he reads the NY Post -- being a Californian like myself.

And there also he brings this idea of John Locke about "natural rights"that do not depend on the will of the Majority. Natural rights is mostly traced to Aquinas who deals with "natural law" in great detail and at great length. But the idea natural  law was also brought  by Saadia Gaon in his Doctrines and Views אמונות ודעות and the Rambam in the Guide.

[The view of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson I think is that the state is created to secure natural rights and that one gives up no rights in order to live within a state. I had seen once a different view -that one gives up certain rights to live in a state  but later I noticed that that view does not appear in the Two Treaties on Government. Also in Dr Kelley Ross's treatment of natural rights, it also doe not appear. And  would have to say that in the Declaration of Independence the view is that the entire purpose of a state is to secure natural rights. So I think that in no sense is the existence of  the state thought to conflict with natural rights.]
The obvious question then is to trace this all back to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam {Maimonides}. Natural Law they both have and natural rights is simply a statement of the laws of Torah as applied. [That is "Thou Shalt not Steal" etc. Meaning one has a right to his own possessions. But what about a state?]


In term of a state I think it is clear that the Rambam holds from a consequence theory--that is you need a state because  no human good is possible without it. As he explains in the Guide, that many laws of the Torah are for the sake of peace of the state.
[As for the kind of government, it seems to me that the Torah requires a king only when the people ask for a king. Look at the actual verse. And that in itself explains why Samuel the prophet was upset with Israel for asking for a king.]

Should there be any such thing as a yeshiva? That is an independent institution--not just a local lace where people gather together to learn Torah or pray. This question was asked of the Gra by Reb Haim of Voloshin. It is unclear if the Gra ever gave any answer.

Clearly people would gather in a local building to learn Torah. But that was never an institution. People would simply learn Torah wherever it was convenient. The whole idea of an institution that you give money to certainly not in the Gemara.




This is related to the question should there be a state. Even if the answer is yes that does not mean that any state is legitimate and only acts within its legitimate range of powers. In fact the likelihood is that even a legitimate state will deteriorate into one that is not legitimate because of the kinds of people that desire power.

At one time during my life I would have answered the question with a booming "YES!" if by a yeshiva one meant a Lithuanian kind of place like Shar Yashuv or the Mir in NY. Today as you can guess my answer is far from affirmative because of the exact same reason why even legitimate states deteriorate. It is the people that are the problem, not the institution.

The Rif learned in fact in something that is almost the exact equivalent of a modern day Litvak yeshiva. It was not connected with the community, but rather was a private institution owned by a particular person.

In any case, the situation today seems to be that most so called yeshivas are private country clubs that one ought to run away from because of the fraud and scams. That is unless we would be discussing the Mir in NY or Ponoviz in Bnei Brak.

U-76 B Flat Major

To get the big picture in the Talmud.

I imagine the best way to do Shas [Talmud] the first time is the way I was learning at the Mir --that is with the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua. The reason I say this that the first time through Shas I think it is very difficult to have any idea of what the "Lumdus" (note 1) of Rav Shach and Reb Haim Soloveitchik is all about. That is my suggestion. This is not the general way people do it. Most people just spend the morning preparing for the rosh yehiva's class at 12:00 P.M.. Then in the afternoon, to just plow through as many pages  as they can with Tosphot.

It is hard to explain why I think these basic אחרונים [later commentaries] are important. You might say -it is to get the big picture before you get bogged down in the details.



So the Maharsha and the Pnei Yehoshua are perfect for that. You get an idea of the basic issues in Tosphot and the Gemara, but you do not have to spend a whole month on one Tosphot if you had been doing it with the Avi Ezri (note 2) and Reb Haim.
It is like a middle ground of Lumdus,--not too much, and not too little. But just right.
[If you are doing something that does not have the Pnei Yehoshua on it, you should probably change venue. But in any case, most things have something along the lines of the Pnei Yehoshua--like the ערוך לנר or the new edition of  R. Akiva Eiger arranged in the order of Shas..]


(note 1) Lumdus means learning in depth and great detail.
(note 2) Rav Shach's book. It is arranged according to the order of the Rambam like Reb Haim's book the חידושי הרמב''ם

My learning partner emphasized diet  to me --especially fresh vegetables some time ago. After that I started having raw beets and black bread in the morning. But he never took kindly to the idea of exercise. [Though in theory he agrees with exercise because of the Rambam in הלכות דעות]

On the other hand there is one fellow -that sends his whole day in the gym. The older he gets, the more exercise he does.

Both approaches I think ought to be combined.
One thing I did notice, however. The idea of waiting between exercise sessions a full day that I heard from my learning partner does not seem valid. Rather, I think what ever amount of exercise one does ought to be be done every day.

Exercise for some reason in high school revolved around several focal points. Running around the track 4 times [one mile] and sit-ups, push-ups. For some reason squatting and standing was never a part of it. [Squats I think were part of Physical Education in Russia, but not in California.]


I once discussed with the P.E. instructor his views on physical fitness. He said some PE instructors imagine that what they teach in high school, the kids will continue later.  He said that is not his view. His view rather was to get his students as physically fit as possible while in high school and then just hope that later they will continue. [This conversation took place when I was a senior so I might have told him that I was going to Shar Yashuv Yeshiva in NY which meant --not a lot of physical education.] In any case, that four times around the track was done every single day (except weekends) for the entire four years of high school.

The awkward thing about Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra is that it seems to contradict the Tosphot on page 34b. Over there on page 34 Tosphot [ד''ה ארבא] brings from the Riva  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the Gemara there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

[I admit I just am relaying on my vague memory that the Gemara holds שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים because of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.]
I am not saying this is a "קושיא" rather just something that needs to be worked out.
_____________________________________________________________________________


The awkward thing about תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא is that it seems to contradict the תספות on page ל''ד ע'ב. Over there on page 34 תספות ד''ה ארבא brings from the ריב''א  that the law of   שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים applies even if neither is holding it. The reason is that the same law applies to a document. So the reason is rather that it is possible that they both own it. Such a case is possible if they both picked it up at the same moment. If on the other hand there is a case where it could not be of both then the law would be כל דאלים גבר.
But the בבא בתרא there makes clear that the reason for the law that they divide it is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. And תספות in the beginning of בבא בתרא says we do not say המע''ה in a case where could be of both. We only say המע''ה when the object must have been of one and not the other.

דבר המביך בתספות בתחילת בבא בתרא הוא שנראה שסותר את התספות בעמוד ל''ד ע''ב ד''ה לפיכך. שם על דף ל''ד תספות ד''ה ארבא מביא מן הריב''א שהחוק של שנים אוחזים בטלית שחולקים חל גם אם לא מחזיקים אותו. הסיבה לכך היא כי אותו החוק חל על מסמך. אז הסיבה היא כי יתכן ששניהם הבעלים שלה. מקרה כזה הוא אפשרי אם שניהם הרימו אותו באותו הרגע. אם מצד שני יש מקרה שבו זה לא יכול להיות אז החוק יהיה כל דאלים גבר. אבל בבבא מציעא שם מבואר כי סיבת החוק כי הם מחלקים אותו הוא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. ותספות בתחילת בבא בתרא אומרים שאנחנו לא אומרים המע''ה במקרה שבו יכול להיות של שניהם. אנחנו אומרים המע''ה רק כאשר האובייקט חייב להיות של אחד מהם ולא את שלשניהם.

Metaphysics.In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about.

Do you include Kant,  Hegel  in the category of Metaphysics that the Rambam requires. I think so. It is the subject matter and its development that the Rambam is thinking about. [However I do not know how to decide between them. What I assume about Kant and Hegel is that it is similar to the debate between Plato and Aristotle in this way. Philosophy tends to come up to some kind of problem once in about 1000 years. It takes a long time until the problem is understood and even longer to come to any kind of solution. Thus the problem of change was formulated by Parmenides and answered by Plato and Aristotle. But the difference between them led to new problems until the synthesis of Neo Platonic thought. I assume this same kind of process is going on with Kant and Hegel with the Mind-Body problem. There is a lot of tension between these two streams of thought.


[The Rambam's opinion about this is in הלכות תלמוד תורה where he says the עניינים הנקראים פרדס that he explained in the first four sections of Mishne Torah are included in learning the Gemara. He is much more open about this in the Guide, but it come up throughout his writings. It is not something he decided only when he was older,-- but rather he held by this approach from the beginning.]
Some people were upset with the Rambam because his opinions offended their sensibilities. However "faith in the wise" require us to hold with the wise even when we imagine that we know better. In any case, I think it is safe to assume that the Rambam had a fairly decent understanding of what Torah is all about. In any case the Rambamis safely within the Neo Platonic school of Plotinus. But how would he stand in regard to the issues raise by Kant and Hegel?]




This is not all that different than when the Rambam requires learning Physics. I do not think that I have to learn Attic Greek and the set of books, The Physics  by Aristotle. Rather I think it refers to the subject matter.

On the other hand, the Rambam limits severely  the subjects one ought [or is allowed] to learn. The Rambam does not give a free pass into modern day pseudo sciences.

He also has a large category of what you would call ספרים חיצוניים "outside books" that one is not allowed to learn- Does he decide like R Akiva that one loses his portion in the next world by reading them? I do not see him bring down R Akiva as law.  Still there the plenty of things he forbids to read. And what is most interesting is the opinion of the Rif and Rosh that say ספרים חיצוניים outside books are books that explain the Torah not like דרשת חז''ל [the way the verses are explained in the Midrash and Gemara.]  That would mean that to understand the meaning of Torah one would have to go into the many Midrashim מדרש רבה מדרש תנחומא ספרי ספרא וכו

I actually had a learning partner in the Mir that spent all his free time learning Midrash. [Eventually he became rosh yeshiva in Leningrad and later in Jerusalem.] If I had been smart I would have done the same thing.

Midrash however is sometimes hard to get. For example, many amoraim [sages of the Talmud] take a highly negative view of Job. That is a bit hard to swallow. However there is a another sage of the Talmud that says Job was greater than Abraham the Patriarch. 

U-75 G Major

But in some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves to be thrown out.

A lot of times, movements are caused by perceived abuse of an existing system. Not that the newer system (that is promised) turns out so much better. It does not matter so much if the old system was really all that bad. What matters is that people got mad enough to decide to change it.
I am thinking of Communism for one example. Enough people were upset by the abuses they saw under capitalism. And to a large degree the abuses were real.
But then Communism did not exactly turn out the way most people expected in Russia. So they went back to capitalism. I was kind of shocked when I asked people in the former USSR how were things? And I always expected an answer "terrible." But instead they always said "Better than now.."
[Even today I asked one woman, "I guess you did not love the USSR?"
She answered me "What do you mean not love? Things were better. I went to school for free. I went to a technical college for free. All my brothers and sisters went to university for free, and families stayed together. Now I can barely pay for my daughter to go to a local college. People's children go off into foreign countries because there is nothing doing here. No work no nothing." And she went on but since my Russian is really rusty I did not get the whole gist. Sometimes they mention they got their homes for free or else bought a new home for $200. And as I was walking along one street today I looked across  the river at the numerous and enormous buildings the soviets built for housing.I can not tells the differences in style. But I assume they were built after the 1960's.]



The same thing applies to Martin Luther. Enough people got upset with the Catholic Church to throw it out. But that is not to say that what they got instead was much of an improvement.
In the Middle Ages this dynamic existed in what was considered "fair price" of goods.


This dynamic still take place  when people wander from movement to movement.


[The thing about Russia is that the abuses were bad enough for enough people to revolt against the czar. Better systems try to alleviate the abuses to the degree that people have less reason to be angry. The whole dynamic of Leftist movements is mainly to get people angry at real or imagine abuses in the USA. The main idea of Leftists is that whatever the USA does is by definition wrong.  The reason why it is wrong always come after the aforesaid conclusion.]

But some systems there is real abuse that in fact deserves  to be thrown out.

This dynamic I think is  a good thing. The question.is how to tell when a system has gotten bad enough to need to be scraped? And what to replace it with? A lot of times people  decide to go back to the old system they previously threw out because the abuses already have been forgotten.


[The Litvak yeshiva world  certainly has a degree of trouble in it. But it seems much less than any other system I have seen. But it is not irrelevant. The question really is how much abuse is tolerable until you decide to overthrow the system and with what will you replace it with? Something better? Or worse?]
Thus my own kind of solution is to simply avoid the problem by learning Torah at home and minding my own business. And the few great Litvak yeshivas I have seen [like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway] to recommend them to anyone that will listen.

Of course Ponoviz I have not seen,-- but any place that could produce a masterpiece like the Avi Ezri has to have something gong for it.
[ Rav Silverman's yeshivas in Jerusalem that go by the Gra also are excellent.]

בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א

The תוספות ד''ה לפיכך in the beginning of בבא בתרא seems to me hard to understand. The משנה says partners that have decided to divide up a courtyard are forced to build  wall. If it falls, it is therefore belongs to both of them. Then תוספות asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is this. In the beginning of בבא מציעא we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה in the case of a מציאה a found object.
My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our משנה in בבא בתרא. It is this. In our משנה we say we divide the wall and the גמרא says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The משנה in בבא מציעא says מחבירו עליו הראיה. What is the difference? Answer: in the משנה in בבא בתרא they are both forced to build the wall. That is the reason the משנה itself gives and it makes perfect sense.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his רשות.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not  say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (sumhos) also.

I admit this is all vague to me since I do not actually have the Gemara Bava Metzia to look it up. It is just that off hand I seem to recall the Gemara saying המע''ה over there.  

בבא בתרא דף ב" ע''א. התוספות ד''ה לפיכך בתחילת בבא בתרא נראה לי קשה להבין. המשנה אומרת שותפים שהחליטו לחלק את החצר שלהם נאלצים לבנות קיר.ולכן אם זה נופל, הוא שייך לשניהם. ואז תוספות שואלים אפילו בלי סיבה זו, זה צריך להיות של שניהם מאז שלא היינו אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה זה. הסיבה שאנחנו לא היינו אומרים את זה בגלל שהוא לא היה ברור מההתחלה שהוא היה שייך רק אחד. השאלה יש לי על זה זה. בתחילת בבא מציעא אנחנו .אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה במקרה של חפץ של מציאה.

השאלה שלי כאן היא שהאובייקט שאבד לא היה שייך רק אחד מהם ולא של האחר. ובכל זאת הגמרא עדיין רוצה להחיל את העיקרון של המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה

לי נראה שיש הסבר פשוט יותר של המשנה בבבא בתרא. זה הוא זה. המשנה שלנו בבבא בתרא אומרת שאנחנו מחלקים את הקיר והגמרא אומרת זה הדין גם אם נפל לתוך התחום של אחד. משנה בבבא מציעא אומרת המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. מה ההבדל? תשובה: במשנה בבבא בתרא הם נאלצים לבנות את הקיר. זוהי הסיבה שהמשנה עצמה נותנת וזה הגיוני. אותו הדבר חל במקרה שבו הם לא נאלצו לבנות את הקיר אבל הסכימו לבנות אותו. בכל מקרה קיימת הנחה מקורית כי הוא שייך לשניהם ובגלל זה אנחנו לא אומרים שזה שייך רק אחד אפילו אם הוא נמצא ברשות שלו.

התשובה לכך לדעתי היא כי המשנה בבבא מציעא לא אומרת המע''ה. הגמרא אומרת  אותו שם אבל זה לא בגלוי במשנה. למעשה הגמרא סוברת כי המשנה יכולה להיות של כסומכוס גם

אני חושב שיש לך להגיד כי הר"י פשוט משתמש בשכל ישר. רק בגלל שהקיר נפל לתוך התחום של אחד מהשותפים, מדועזה זה צריך לתת לו  טיעון יותר חזק מאשר השותף השני

Tosphot in the beginning

The Tosphot in the beginning of Bava Batra seems to me hard to understand. The Mishna says partners that have decided to split up a courtyard are forced to build a wall. If it falls, it is therefore of both of them. Tosphot asks even without that reason it ought to be of both since we would not say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (One who wants to claim money that is in the domain of his friend must bring a proof). In that case. The reason we would not say that is because it was not clear from the beginning that it belonged to just one. The question I have on this is that in the beginning of Bava Metzia we do say המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה (his must bring a proof) in the case of a מציאה a found object.[My question here is that the lost object was not clearly of just one and not the other. And yet the Gemara still wants to apply the principle of המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
To me it seems there is a more simple explanation of our Mishna in Bava Batara. It is this. In our Mishna we say we split the wall and the Gemara says that is the case even if it has fallen into the domain of one of the partners. The Mishna in Bava Metzia says הממע''ה (his must bring a proof). What is the difference? Answer: in the Mishna in Bava Batra they are both forced to build the wall.
The same thing applies in a case where they were not forced to build it but had agreed to build it. In any case there is an original assumption that it belongs to both and that is why we do not say it belongs to just one even if it is in his domain.

The answer to this I think is that the Mishna in Bava Metzia does not actually say המע''ה. The Gemara applies it there but it is not openly in the Mishna. In fact the Gemara holds that Mishna can be of סומכוס (Sumhos) also.

[In any case it is obvious that the Ri [Rabainu Isaac] must have felt this question on the was so great as to be forced to say something in answer that is clearly not the great kind of answer. He must have felt the question on the mishna to be really powerful to force him into a corner. Even with my answer  for the Ri I have trouble seeing the force of the question.] In any case it is clear to me that I need to do a lot more thinking into this to understand exactly why the Ri thinks this is such  big question.

[I do not have a Gemara Bava Metzia to look this up]

I think you have to say that the Ri is simply using common sense. Just because the wall has fallen into the domain of one of the partners, why should that give him more claim to it than the partner?

U-74 B Flat Major mp3  u-74 midi  u-74 nwc

serving in the IDF

The Gemara does give some kinds of פטור (no obligation) to people that are learning Torah for taxes, street sweeping, building a wall {Bava Batra 7.} -- but not for digging wells, since they also need water. Thus to me it seems clear that serving in the IDF also would be included in things they are obligated in since they also need נטירותא guarding. When the rockets from Syria were raining down on Safed, they all ran south. No one said their Torah learning would protect them.


In any case, what do you call "learning Torah"? If that means simple straight Litvak yeshivas  learning Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot,-- then these places are very rare. Most yeshivas in Israel were made in the first place in order to avoid the draft.  Learning Gemara is the last thing on their minds. [Other ones were made to make money for the rosh yeshiva and his close buddies. They are basically country clubs made for sitting and talking all day. They also have nothing to do with learning Torah except for show.]
In fact, the enormous amount of fraud that got into the whole thing tempts me to say the best thing is to shut them all down except Ponoviz and a few of its offshoots and branches.

The major advantage of Litvak yeshivas is that they learn straight Torah. Also they take seriously the חרם the excommunication with the signature  of the Gra which is important in that it warns people to stay away from the Dark Side. That is one advantage. Another advantage of paying attention  to the signature of the Gra is from the standpoint of law--even if it would have no basis in reality. 

Hegel and Leonard Nelson

I feel a little guilty in recommending Hegel because this is quite different from the Kant-Friesian School which started with Leonard Nelson. Still I feel the total dismissal of Hegel is not warranted.

The problem is that while Hegel to me seems very great, a lot of misuse still is made of him. Now Popper thought that he was the cause of all totalitarian movements that came later, but that does not seem accurate at all. Never the less nowadays self identified Hegelians do seem to have gone off into the deep end of the swimming pool. 

[You might look at the debate between Dr Kelley Ross and a self identified  Hegelian on his web site  and you will see what I mean. The weak part of Hegel in fact seems to be when people try to apply his ideas to politics.]
So far I like to look at German  Idealism as one. That is one solid body of knowledge. The differences I like to think are only the result of looking at different aspects of the same thing. So I tend to see Hegel, McTaggart as not all that different from Leonard Nelson. Just different aspects.

[Anyway just take McTaggart's critique of Hegel --in particular his "take" on dialectics and you do not end up much different than Leonard Nelson. That is his idea that dialectics corrects mistakes.]

[ I have tried to ignore one German idealist after the other. It does not seem to .work. You can try to take Hegel in a vacuum and that does not work. Try to take Kant in a vacuum and that works even worse. Try to ignore them all and that goes down blind alleys. I think you really in the end have to accept Kant Hegel and Leonard Nelson.

If you try to go with the basic Rambam approach in the Guide you end up immediately in the Middle Ages. The Logic works but the axioms do not. That is the problem with all Medieval Philosophy.The Logic is always rock solid but the axioms seem clearly false. Try to go with later Rationalists or Empiricist the  logic is mostly circular and the axioms are  false. So to avoid Kant and Hegel which is what a lot of people would like to do just does not work. --Unless you like twentieth century philosophy which is sheer gibberish.]



Looking at for one example the real is rational in terms of time and Bradley and McTaggart's dealing with it leads me to notice the same thing that Dr Kelly Ross does, and Job also--the universe now is not perfect. Whether it is with Hegel or Dr. Ross I get the same idea that perfection is only in the Platonic spheres, not down here.

[McTaggart's concept of time is also just not all that different from Kant but from different reasons., i.e. there is no time. However here too it seems necessary to divide reality into two parts, the dinge an sich and phenomena as Kant does.

In terms of Quantum Mechanics this idea of the problem with time come up in so far that thing are superpositions of many possible values in space and time before they are actually measured.
But that doe not mean there is no time.Rather things do not have any one value in space or time until measured. This you know from the fact that Nature violates Bell's inequality. [Bell did not like QM and base on the Einstein [EPR] set up he showed that any hidden variable theory would come out differently that QM. Nature shows QM is right. [Bell used the EPR set up to build  his inequality. ]
However I have to add that the moon is there even before you see it because of coherence lifetime. That is the atoms are not in a vacuum. They interact with each other and that causes the wave function to collapse to just one state. Coherence lifetime is the reason quantum computing is hard --it is hard to get atoms all by themselves.

The Metaphysics of the Rambam

The Metaphysics of the Rambam was not Kabalah. You can see in the Guide where he defines it as the Metaphysics  of the ancient Greeks. But even in his commentary and in the Mishne Torah itself you can see this when he makes references to Plato and Aristotle' s system.
Besides that I do not feel the Zohar is all that it is cracked up to be.   But on the other hand I have great respect for the Ari and the Remak but not because of their insights into the Zohar but rather from their own personal service by which they gained insight.
The Zohar itself I think is a work from the Middle Ages. As for example" גרדני" [guards] is not an Aramaic word. "עם כל דא" also is a clear red light. It is  a translation of  a phrase invented by the Ibn Tibon family to stand for "although" which before the Middle Ages was "אף על פי" or "אף על גב".
Rav Yaakov Emden already went into this. [The phrase invented by Ibn Tibon was עם כל זה]

The Zohar itself basically takes the world view of the Middle Ages and expands on it.
The oddest thing about it is when Rav Isaac from Acco asked the author about it, he answered with an oath that more or less said may G-d strike him down if it is not from R. Shimon ben Yohai and that he would show him the original manuscript if Rav Isaac would visit him and that promise was not fulfilled since in fact G-d struck him down afterwards. But stories are not proof. The main point is that internal evidence shows it is a work of the Middle Ages. If one wants to know and understand the deeper nature of reality, it is better to abide by the approach of the Rambam.

I decided a long time ago to go along with the idea of faith in the wise and I think there is no doubt that the Rambam fits the category of "wise."

But Metaphysics has made progress since the Neo Platonic School that the Rambam was basing himself on. Thus I think to fulfill what the Ramam was saying the best idea is to learn, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel. [To understand Hegel the best idea is to learn McTaggart.]

U-72 C Major  u-72 midi  u-72 nwc

Straight Torah.The problem however is not money. It is that the people that claim to speak in the name of the Torah are generally liars.

In the prophet Zephaniah 3 there is a verse that compares the judge of Israel to evening wolves that are constantly hunting new prey, so that they do not even bother with the bones and leftovers from their old prey.

This goes along with the idea brought in the end of tractate Shabat "If you see a generation upon that troubles come go and check the judges of Israel. For all the troubles that come into the world only come because of the judges of Israel."

To some degree this can be seen even in the Rambam  in his commentary on Pirkei Avot that כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל את חייו מן העולם. [Whosoever derives monetary benefit from the words of Torah takes is life out of the world. The Rambam says that means the world to come.]
The actual statement of Hillel was in the beginning of Pirkei Avot not to make money off of Torah nor get paid for learning or teaching. קרדום לחפור בהם. But later in Pirkei Avot  that same statement is brought a second time with the explanation כל הנהנה מדברי תורה נוטל את חייו מן העולם,- and that is where the Rambam goes into detail about this problem.

The problem however is not money. It is that the people that claim to speak in the name of the Torah are generally liars.




This does however leave a kind of problem about how to give a divorce or other aspects of Law.
In fact in order to have a good idea of how to keep Torah, knowledge of Gemara and Musar is necessary. But you need to find a kind of legitimate Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva to get straight Torah.
Or learn at home. The only straight Torah places I know of are the great NY Litvak yeshivas or Ponoviz where Rav Shach taught. [There are possibly places with people that learned in Ponoviz or in the Mir in NY that might be good places. I am really not sure.]
[If one is out in the woods where there is not a Litvak yeshiva, then the main thing is to learn Tosphot along with the Pnei Yehoshua and the Avi Ezri.]
Instead of getting through a lot of tractates what I think is best is to work on just one tracate per year and to do with with Tosphot, Pnei Yehohua, and the new R.Akiva Eiger which they printed up in such a way that you can find what he wrote on each page and the Aruk LaNer. [For Nida, Sukka etc where there is no Pnei Yehoshua.] [The Avi Ezri should be learned as a session in itself.]

I might mention my own experience here. In the Mir in NY, people mainly spent theri morning hours getting ready for the classes. That is: Year 1- the Sukat David. Year 2- Rav Shmuel Brudny. Year 3- Rav Shraga Moshe Kalmenoviz. Year 4- Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. Each rosh yeshiva has his own new ideas on the subject matter every day that was along the lines of the Avi Ezri or Rav Haim HaLevi.
The fact that I was doing  a lot of the Pnei Yehoshua and the Maharsha was not the general practice.
[Th reason is not that I was so advanced. Just the opposite. Everyone was far beyond me. But the kind of classes in the Mir were  versions of the kind of deep learning you find in the Avi Ezri and חידושי הרמב''ם of Reb Haim Brisker. And that was beyond me even though officially I could attend any class that I wanted. But for me I found these middle level אחרונים to be something I could grasp.
The fact is the rosh yeshiva, Reb Shmuel Berenbaum did me a favor by letting me join the yeshiva because I was no where near their level of learning. And the saying "smart Mir yeshiva guys" has definite a basis in fact.]

[ might mention the fact that every one of the teachers had an enormous amount of new and original ideas that they gave over every day in class. I have no idea why they did not bother to write them down.  Today the original teachers are gone but in their places are people of genius level like Rav Nelkenbaum.] But if you are far from there you can still get an idea of what is going on at the Mir if you learn the Avi Ezri and Reb Haim.--that at least can give you  a taste of real Torah.

In NY I did not like the NY Times much. I preferred the NY Post and NY Daily. They fell in quality after around 2000 but then recently seemed to be getting better. In any case the Times always seemed slanted to me to the degree that I could not stand reading it. It felt like reading the Pravda.

Something similar with the Haaretz. Even at a meeting with a reporter from Haaretz I felt the force of "Politically Correct"  in his complete refusal to acknowledge any evidence that went against the basic "Party line". Yediot I found a lot better,  and yet quality there too fell after 2000. Maybe it picked up recently like the NY Post. I am not sure.

U-73 C Major   [U-73 midi]  [U-73 nwc]

To some degree I can see the process that Hegel calls dialectics  in how Relativity was discovered. The basic idea of Hegel was if you take some concept and just go with it taking it as far as you can, you will eventually end up with some kind of contradiction. That is more or less what Einstein did. He simply took Maxwell's equations and asked what would happen if you took them for a moving body? That in fact led to a problem in the equations themselves, unless you took the speed of light in a vacuum be constant in all frames of reference.  And in fact at that point in time there was the result of the Michelson/Morley experiment indicating just that. [Though I got the impression that that experiment was not very important for Einstein's results which him came to even without it.] And after that Einstein just took the next logical step in asking what would happen in an accelerating frame of reference? And then came up with his idea that a person in free fall would not know he is in an accelerating frame of reference. But to get the equation for that, Einstein needed to do some more work. But still the basic process of reasoning was more or less straightforward.


[As pointed out by McTaggart, the dialectics of Hegel is not meant to be separate from observation. That. in fact, had been a critique on Hegel that was answered by McTaggart, and also I think that it is more or less clear in Hegel himself. --In his treatment of immediate knowledge.]

I have to say that I see a lot of parallels between Plato and the Kant.Fries system and also a strong connection between Hegel and Plotinus [Neo Platonic]. [Dr Kelley Ross wrote that the Rambam is pretty much a straightforward Neo Platonist, so that puts him somewhat closer to Hegel in that regard. [In Kelley Ross's web site there is an essay which presents a case that the Rambam was in fact close to the Kant Fries approach --which does seem to be right in the areas he points out there.]

[Popper puts to much blame on Hegel. When Marx and Lenin openly rejected the major points of Hegel I can not see how Hegel is to blame. Besides that Hegel was supporting a system like that of the USA.  The Estates  wanted to go back to feudal laws against the constitution proposed by the Prussian Monarch which was saying equal rights under the law! So Hegel supporting that constitution was actual supporting something close to the USA constitution].

my search for truth

In my search for truth, I believe I came upon a remarkable theory of the Kant/Friesian approach of Kelley Ross and Leonard Nelson. But that is in terms of philosophy. I do not think that can substitute for the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach nor of Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Pnei Yehoshua,, and R Akiva Eiger,.Aruck LaNer These are separate areas of value.
Getting philosophy and politics right is just as important as Gemara.

For a long time I was unaware of German Idealism. Most philosophers  nowadays think they can by- pass it as irrelevant. In the meantime twentieth century thought is astoundingly empty of meaning and reason. I do not think you can bypass German Idealism, but nor do I think it is the strongest basis for politics. In terms of Politics, I think English thought --John Locke, De Foe, Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson are a lot better as you can see in the papers they wrote to convince NY to vote for the Constitution.

[In terms of Hegel, however, I do not share the general disdain  that some of the German Idealists held for him. I can see that in Russia, the Marxists were dealing with different kinds of problems than the founding fathers of the USA were dealing with. The thing about the USSR is that the czar and the later USSR had to deal with a totally different kind of population than WASP's  {White Anglo Saxon Protestants}. That means that things and ideas that worked for the newly formed USA could not work for Russia.]

In any case, I feel that Leonard Nelson deserves a lot more credit than he is usually given-- and that goes for the German Idealists also. [Somehow I imagine that Nelson's books have not even been translated. And that is surprising and sad.]

The idea of  balance of values is one that I got from my parents. Under their guidance I went to publc schools -which in those days were much better than now. My parents definite advocated a balance of values.

[In the USA there seems to have been a default position that everything and anything slightly related to German Idealism was out and out wrong. This even penetrated high school. You could not even find books old or new in that area. It was almost as if Kant and Hegel never existed. To replace that vacuum all kinds of really dumb stuff was suggested.] 

Nowadays the trend seems  a lot better. There is Dr Kelley Ross, Michael Huemer, Edward Fesser and others. The dark pit of insane twentieth century philosophy seems to be in the past--thank God.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject when I was growing up. In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

"Seeking for truth" was a big subject around (in high school) when I was just entering my teen age years.
For some this was the age of the rise of many movements that laid claim to the "Truth."
On my own I did some reading on this. It seems to me today that a great deal of my motivation was internal as well as external.

I did not know anyone in particular who went deeply into Hindu or Buddhist religion, or the different gurus around then. But there were plenty of people that went that way (to their own later regret).

Philosophy at that time was well known to be empty of meaning, so no one that I knew went in that direction.

I did my own reading of Plato, Dante, Spinoza and a compilation of about 1000 Chinese philosophies.

[Neither in book stores nor the public library, nor the high school library were Hegel, nor anyone representing Idealism. However I do recall I think one book of Kant in the high school library.
The philosophical fads in those day  were ridiculous vacuums --but no one knew it at the time.]

Today I think avoiding these kinds of movements that lay claim to "the Truth" is the first step towards "the Truth". Truth lays in living a moral life, talking with God in one's own language, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have other do unto you.

[To some degree I can see why there was no interest in Hegel or any part of German Idealism. But the philosophies that attempted to replace that were empty wallets. You can see this in Dr. Kelly Ross's web site where he goes into detailed about the failed philosophies of the twentieth century. Dr Michael Huemer also goes into some detail about that.]

In any case truth is not what you know, but how you live.

In terms of knowledge, nothing is immune to disproof. Lots of things people were 1000% sure of turned out to be false. [Frege's self evident axioms, the world is the center, etc, ] Even in your own life you can see this in things you thought you remembered in 100% certainly that later you found out were wrong. The mark of truth is that it s fallible as Popper said.  It must be falsifiable.

Maimonides and Saadia Gaon went a long ways in getting the ideas of Plato and Aristotle as considred a part of "The Truth." I feel today a similar effort is needed to get Kant, Hegel and Leonard Nelson also to be lifted from the pit of obscurity  into the light.

Hegelian Idealism

Hegel has had a curious history. Hegelian Idealism was totally gone by 1850.  Marx and Kierkegaard also disagreed with Hegel about most major points but still adopted his methods. Now these two philosophies of Marx and Kierkegaard  encompass a large part of the globe. And a great deal of twentieth century philosophy is a kind of struggle to escape Metaphysics. Is not it time to give Leonard Nelson and the Kant/Fries approach due consideration?

Opposed to the Idealism of Kant and Hegel is most of 20th century philosophy.

A great deal of twentieth century philosophy is  really quite horrible. As Dr John Searle put it "It is obviously false"--that is referring to the linguistic (British-American) and analytical (continental).

But never the less getting it right is still important.


[In high school I was very interested in philosophy but thankfully I did not go into it as a profession or even a hobby.  I guess I did not see much going on there of any value.

Allen Sokal and Allen Bloom already made these points. But you can see this for yourself when present day philosophers say anything that even vaguely is related to science. That is one  area you can see they went off the path of sanity.]