music file x69

 x69 mp3 D major [x69 in midi]  x69 nwc

What was the story with me and philosophy?

What was the story with me and philosophy?

Even in high school I was fascinated by issues in philosophy. But that was soon enough after WWII that you did not find Kant, Hegel or any German philosophers in the library or book stores.

So I studied in my spare time the available authors. [That is when I was walking by the book stores on the way to the public library after school to wait for my dad to pick me up after his work day.]

But one way or  another, I got the idea that British-American philosophy was not going anywhere. Just a vacant lot. Empty and meaningless.

[However when I did get to Shar Yashuv in NY [a very great Litvak yeshiva] the rosh yeshiva did encourage me to continue my secular studies. So on the side, I did study some of the existentialists.

I did see the Ramchal [Rav Moshe Chaim Lutzatto] had a lot of depth. However, I still look at the issues as being somewhat unsettled.

In any case, looking at the rishonim, some like Aristotle and some do not. Still, my impression is that philosophy is important, but not after Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus [Neo Plato].

[In my view, Kant and Hegel fit into Plotinus. I see Hegel as a modified form of Plotinus]

 

But seeing that the Gra in fact went through Shas at least once, it is safe to say that that excommunication is valid.

The idea of a "neder" [vow] is different from an oath [shavuah]. The difference is that a vow is derived from the way one would vow something to the Temple. That is you would say "This animal I am vowing to be a peace offering." Or you might say, "I am vowing this chair." In that case you would bring the chair to a representative of the Temple [Gizbar] and they would sell it and the money would be used for the Temple. The whole idea of a vow comes from that. That is you can say, "This loaf of bread is a 'Karban' [sacrifice] to me". Or even less. You might say, ''This loaf of bread is forbidden to me'' and not even mention a sacrifice. You can even have "yadot nedarim" {extensions of vows}. That is where one does not even use the right words, or some broken version of the word.

So when it comes to a "herem" [excommunication], the same kind of set of laws applies. That is, that interacting with an individual or a group can be made to be forbidden. For example, I might say to myself, "so and so is herem to me." So then all interaction with that person is forbidden. But then you get the issue of the herem that the Gra signed.   [There were a few. The Gra signed the second one]. However in order to have the authority to make a decree of excommunication one needs to have gone through Shas Talmud at least once. Not anyone can make a valid excommunication on a group that makes it in fact forbidden for anyone to have any connection with that group. But seeing that the Gra in fact went through Shas at least once, it is safe to say that that excommunication is valid.   

And in addition to this I ought to make the point that one is obligated to remove a stumbling block in front of people. אל תעמוד על דם רעך/ לפני עוור לא תיתן מכשול. So if one is aware of this problem and yet ignores it or pretends that it doesn't exist. that in itself transgressing. One does not get off scot-free  by a plea of lason hara/ slander. It is not lashon hara to warn someone of a danger to their body and soul.

[By the way I do not think it applies to Rav Nahman of Breslov. You can see why yourself by looking up the actual language of the herem.]]

Socialist Student Gets DESTROYED on Live TV. she already knows that socialism can not pay for what it promises

 

I could not help but laugh the whole day. When asked how would she pay for all the "benefits" she said in answer: the USA is the "the bastion of capitalism and its success", and will not run out of money! So she already knows that socialism can not pay for what it promises. Only capitalism can do that.

WASPS [White Anglo Saxon Protestant]

WASPS [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] seem to have what you could say is a guilt complex. Anyone that attacks them and their values they see good in. Anyone that stands up for them is suspected of some deep sin like "racism". I saw how the USA was this really amazing wholesome society until political correctness started taking over. A cure to this problem seems unlikely on a large level since at least a good half of the WASP populations in the USA are self destructing. But for individuals I think there is hope. The Ten Commandments.

[I might add two things. One is this idea of going out to a field or forest often to talk with God as one talks with a friend. That would not be prayer exactly, but more along the lines of speaking with God from the inner depths of one's heart.  Another idea would be along the idea of Rav Israel Salanter who started the "Musar Movement" which means to learn books of ethics from the Middle Ages. [For Protestants that would mean to learn the more ancient texts like Augustine and Boethius.] 

[Actually I am not sure if WASPs are self destructing or if there is some kind of genocide that is going on against them in a subtle way--like the schools from kindergarten and onwards convincing children that WASPs are the cause of all human sufferings.] 

tribal identity is evil

 Even though I can see that tribal identity is evil, and leads to evil, but people believe it absolves them from sin. I guess I never made it clear on this blog that I do not think that tribal identity is a good thing. Rather to me what makes Torah interesting is that it teaches what is natural law. What is right and what is wrong. That is how the rishonim [mediaeval authorities] understand it. Not one rishon holds that the laws of the Torah are right because they were commanded. Rather that they are commanded because they are right. [And that in itself does imply a hierarchy of values.

[This is not just in the rishonim but in the Gemara itself. In the Sefer haChinuch [from a disciple of the Nahmanides] there is brought down the rational reasons for every commandment. But the Gemara itself apparently thinks these reasons are obvious because the only argument in the Gemara is if we go by the reason or the literal meaning. To R Shimon ben Yochai Bava Metzia pg 119, we go by the reason. But even to the sages (that disagree with RS),there is no doubt that we know the reasons for the commands. The only thing they disagree with is that even so we go by the literal meaning. If there are deeper reason the Gemara holds they fall off when the open reason does not apply. Otherwise there would be no cause for disagreement. RS himself would hold the literal meaning always holds since we never not the deeper meaning. And that is exactly what the sages would have claimed. But they did not. Rather. they said even though we know the reason for the law, still we go by the literal meaning.

[The main problem of knowing what is objective morality is not simple. Reason alone can indicate anything. Even group identity. So to answer this, the Torah what revealed to tell us what is objective morality.] 

[However even in Torah, there is a law that an individual can judge from the Torah. It is only a decree from the later sages that only three can judge. See Rav Shach in the laws of the Sanhedrin.  And even a court can make mistakes. And if one is aware of their mistakes and still judges according to the Sanhedrin he is held liable because he should have known better that to depend on a mistaken court. And their mistake can even include the things judged by the 13 principles as we see in Rav Shach in laws of mamrim--that if one court decides based on the 13 principles and a later court sees otherwise they can reverse that decision.

Rav Shach says that Ra Abahu and Rav Acha agree that one can judge from the Torah. This answers an apparent contradiction in the Rambam that  the Kesef Mishna [Rav Josef Karo] brings up. And in fact you have to say this because right in the Torah itself there is a sacrifice for when the Sanhedrin is wrong. And in the Mishna we have that if one depends on the Sanhedrin in a law even though he knew the true law, he is obligated.

 I want to mention that I think it is best not to surrender to Socialism. The mere fact that it is wrong morally and logically, means that the surrender to it  will in the end result in the termination of those whose surrender. The Dark Side always swallows its own.

Descartes with his vortexes.

 I have wanted to mention for some time that the very notion of String Theory goes back to Descartes. For at first because of the linear relationships found in the 1950's and 1960's between Angular momentum and the Energy squared that you could have a model of two quarks going around each other. But that left some daughter trajectories unexplained. So the idea was to concern the two quarks joined by a wire or string that explained the full relationship. But that string is in a slightly different from the exact same thing that was proposed by Descartes with his vortexes. [The difference is that two quarks going around in their force field leads to one kind of relationship that is different than if they would be attached by a strong string. The tension on the string is thought to be a constant of nature.]

If you look at the history of England and the USA as one continuum

 If you look at the history of England and the USA as one continuum [instead of as two separate entities], you can see a pattern in which WASPs may endure unjust tyrannical rule for some period, but eventually get fed up with the nonsense.  Most people's are not like like, but rather this seems something unique to Protestant-Anglo-Saxons.  So no matter how much the Democratic party wants to impose on WASPs the rule of socialism on real Americans, the likelihood is that Americans are going to fight back.

And they probably should, because I just do not see socialism or communism in a good light. Even if its results where it has been tried had turned out OK, it still would be in my eyes as very wrong and unjust. All the more so that it never seems to work out very well without breaking a lot of eggs to the tune of at least 100 million broken egg shells.

What the USA needs now is a Boris Yeltzin moment to stand on the top of a tank and tell the Congress that we the people of the USA will not stand for Communism or socialism any more.

Rav Nahman wrote in the LeM that the wicked win in judgment in order that God should protect the righteous. So the fight for freedom from the socialism and communism is not over. It has just begun.

 Talking with God as one talks to a good friend [that Rav Nahman calls "Hitbodadut"]. Even though I assume most people do this automatically when a time of crisis arrives but with Rav Nahman of Uman this was a major goal in life. That is to spend as much time as possible praying to God and learning Torah. It just so happened that in a way that Carl Jung calls synchronicity that soon after I got this idea from the books of Rav Nahman that I also found myself in Safed in Israel surrounded by forests. So I actually has some opportunity to do this on a daily basis.

Now the actual idea of Rab Nahman was a bit different than a fellow by the name of Brother Lawrence who also talked with God all the time but that was amongst his regular chores. [See the book The Presence of God.] But with Rav Nahman the idea was to actually go out to the forests or any area where no one else is and to spend as much time as possible talking with God as a friend.

So you can ask the obvious question that there is no such commandment to do this. Learning Torah is what the Torah holds one ought to do all the time as the four volume of Nefesh Hachaim of Rav Chaim of Voloshin makes clear. Even so I can see the point of Rav Nahman since we do find that there is a commandments to pray to God in times of trouble. [See Nahmanides on the commandments ]. So Rav Nahman noticed that all of us are in times of trouble in spirit and body. The only thing is a lot of us do not realize it. So it is better to go to God and ask help even before the troubles begin.

I would like to recommend what one ought to at have finished once. The two Talmud and Midrashim [even with no commentaries] so that at least once he will have finished the entire Oral Law.

 I am noticing that as time goes by, it gets more difficult to spend time learning. I mean,- on one hand it was never all that easy- since by the time I got home from school, I was usually too tired to do much homework. But in any case, this seems to be universal. Only some rare individuals manage to grow and develop as time goes by. Leopold Vietoris wrote his last mathematical paper when he was 102 [or 103]. [He stopped skiing when he was 80, and he stopped mountain climbing when he was 90.] Beethoven as time went by just got better and better. The 9th is nothing like the 1st symphony.

But for most people like me it is hard to improve with age.

So as a minimum at least to keep the goals in mind, I would like to recommend what one ought to at have finished once. The two Talmud and Midrashim [even with no commentaries] so that at least once he will have finished the entire Oral Law. Then the entire Avi Ezri of Rav Shach at least one time from cover to cover in order to gain an insight into the depths of the Oral Law. Then in terms of the two other areas that some rishonim/mediaeval authorities recommend Physics and Metaphysics, I would say to get through the basic material at least up until String Theory. [That would means the two basic areas Algebra and Topology, plus the basic subjects leading up until String Theory--Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.] When Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam recommend metaphysics it is clear they meant Aristotle and his commentaries. But after that I am not sure, since philosophy seems to have taken some detours. The best I saw is the Kant-Fries-Nelson school. And I think Hegel is vey important, even though he is different from the Kant-Fries School. Each has some important points, but it is hard to see which are the important point to embrace, and which are the weaker points. How to separate the wheat from the chaff?  

It was pointed out to me that some parts of the Oral Law do not seem relevant. My answer to this is that learning Torah is more about the idea of holiness [or the idea of the numinous of the Kant Fries Nelson school.]

the best I saw was the Mir in NY, and Shar Yashuv was a pretty close second.

 Even though there is great good in the Litvak yeshiva world, it would be hard to point towards any kind of tribalism that I could agree with. The flaw of using a group as a guide for one's principles seems to me to be that groups have no principles, only individuals. [Besides once money got mixed up inside the world of Torah and Torah became a way to gain money and power, the juice just got drained from the battery.]] Rather it is best just to take the basic idea which is to learn Torah and leave off doctrines. That for one thing I did see as really great aspect of the Litvak world- no doctrines. Just: "Learn what learn Torah says and do it."  But the actual institutions certainly can be flawed. In any case, the best I saw was the Mir in NY, and Shar Yashuv was a pretty close second.

x64 music file

 x64 F minor mp3

In places like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv, it was thought that depth learning is for the morning and fast learning for the afternoon.]

 Rav Nahman of Breslov was against learning any kind of philosophy and I can see his point being that it never comes to any kind of conclusion. You can spend a lifetime just trying to untangle the arguments and still have gotten now where. However the Kant-Fries-Leonard Nelson system has found a certain amount of grace because in it there is a justification of faith plus an accurate way of showing the limits of reason and the limits of faith.

I mean, you can see to a great degree that just Torah with no Metaphysics at all tends to be a bit too narrow. It leaves too much room for delusions in areas that are not within the strict bounds of Gemara and Tosphot. 

But as far as Rav Nathan was concerned, the opinion of Rav Nahman was also against learning science and that is far less clear based on many places in the LeM where he emphasis seeing the wisdom in all things including physical. Plus his emphasis on faith in "the wise" {LeM I:60}. And that would have to include the gedolai Sefarad like Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam.

[I have to mention that the way of learning fast by saying the words and going on makes the most sense to me in this regard since not everyone is an Albert Einstein, and yet the way Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold this kind of learning is an obligation. So the path of fast learning is the best idea. However some sessions of review are also important, but how much to emphasize one kind of learning as opposed to the other is not clear to me. In places like the Mir in NY and Shar Yashuv, it was thought that depth learning is for the morning and fast learning for the afternoon.]

tractate Eruvin page 37

 There seems to be some kind of doubt about what "no choice" אין ברירה means. Does that means what one will choose in the future does not reveal now what he  chooses. Or does it even mean  even right now, what one chooses does not reveal what one has chosen. 

This comes up in tractate Eruvin page 37. Rava said the reason R. Shimon said, "the statement: 'the two portions [lugin] I will choose are truma' does not help," is not because there is no choice, but because it says ראשית (the first) meaning that the left offers have to be apparent.שייריה ניכרין."

The Gemara asks on Rava, "What about the mishna where R Shimon said: "When one says, 'the truma and maasar of this stack are in it,' is considered to have called the name and place of the truma and maasar and so it is valid." The Gemara answers its own question and says there there is an area surrounding the truma and maasar and so it is considered that the left over parts are apparent.

 Tosphot asks the the same question would apply even if the reason of R Shimon in the first statement would have been because of "no choice". [So the question of the Gemara should not have been on Rava, but on R Shimon himself no matter what the reason for the first statement of R Shimon would be.]

Rav Shach asks on this question of Tosphot the the difference ought to be based on the idea that "no choice" usually refers to the future [i.e. what ones will choose in the future is considered as if he choose it now. The second statement  of R Shimon refers to a case where he says he is setting the truma and maasar right now-but it will not be revealed where there are until he actually picks them out.

Furthermore what does one do if let's say he or she is "possessed"?

Jordan Peterson  discusses ideological possession in one video which kind of set off a whole train of thoughts in me starting from Howard Bloom with the issue "social memes".

It certainly seems related to what Rav Nahman talks about with "Torah scholars that are demons" [LeM vol I ch.s 12, 28.] meaning "possessed" I guess.

Furthermore what does one do if let's say he or she is "possessed"? 

My thought about this is the idea of Rav Nahman of "hitbodadut" which means going to  a place where no one else is around and talking with God as one talks with a friend. That I think is the way Rav Nahman is thinking that it is possible to get to one's inner core or the authentic you, and shed all the layers of false ideologies that one has picked up from other people.

[Besides that, Rav Nahman has advice for every possible problem in the Sefer HaMidot. I just do not recall what he says that would help for this problem.] 

The problem with modern philosophy is the tactic of writing in a manner that is incomprehensible, then accusing critics of failure to comprehend, as though the fault resides with the critics rather than the original writer.

I do have a point of view in which I try to fit the good points of many different philosophers. That is basically of Plotinus (i.e Neo-Plato). So while I accept the insights of the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought, I  think about Reason as not being human reason at all,  but Divine Reason  which can be manifested in living beings to some degree.

[So I do not think human reason determines the nature of things. Rather Divine wisdom permeates Creation and determines the laws of nature.]   

But it takes a certain degree of common sense to be able to tell who really has something to say and who does not. 

The problem with modern philosophy is  the tactic of writing in a manner that is incomprehensible, then accusing critics of failure to comprehend, as though the fault resides with the critics rather than the original writer. 

So I do try to use common sense to have a consistent world view. But I do have a kind of starting place which is Plato and Plotinus. And with that context I manage to fit in the insights of the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought, (non intuitive immediate knowledge --faith) [but also find an important place for G.E. Moore with the fact that reason recognizes universals,  Certainly each of these schools would disagree with each other. But by means of the Plato Plotinus system I manage to fit it all in one consistent system.   But I am not arguing for this. I am simply saying my own world view for those that might care what I am thinking.

Now you might wonder from where I picked up this world view. Well in part because after school I waited for my dad to pick me up at the library and while waiting I used to read Plato. And then later I learned the Chovot Levavot [Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda] while at the Mir in NY  and his system is neo-Platonic [i.e. Plato-Plotinus.]

Pinocchio

 Pinocchio gave his life to save his father. And he did in fact lose his life. But what kind of life was that? of a puppet? It was in fact his supreme sacrifice to save his Dad that became the cause that he became a real boy and in fact started having a true life, not the life of  a puppet.

Why does this matter? because often art precedes philosophy in insight and depth.

music file x65

 x65 C Major MP3 file

the Labor Theory of Value is false.The value things have does not depend on how much labor went into making them. I do not are if someone spent a whole day making one needle.

 The major thing I dislike about communism is that it makes no sense. [It is based on the Labor Theory of Value which is false. The value things have does not depend on how much labor went into making them. I do not are if someone spent a whole day making one needle. That makes it no more valuable to me than if  a factory produced it and I can buy it for one cent. Rather, the value depends on how much people want it. And the factory owner does not extract excess value from the worker. He creates value. The proof you can see yourself. Try to make on your own something and then try to sell it on the street. One day of doing that would have shown Marx and Lenin a thing or two about capitalism.] But that is besides the fact of its supposedly scientific predictions came out just the opposite of what it was predicting. But when things are in chaos, it does provide a means to taking control. That was the assessment of the head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover. And he meant that in a negative sense. But the same idea was expressed to me by a Mormon who worked as an economist. [I asked him about President Hoover  and the depression and the fact that Roosevelt instituted lots of socialist policies to bring the USA out of the Depression. Whether that worked I do not know, but the answer that Mormon fellow told me was that sometimes in a times of chaos, you need some way that central government can take control.] And in a more startling way it was expressed by many people I met in the Ukraine. No one ever told me things were better under democracy than under communism. Whenever I asked, people always told me things were better than than they were under democracy. [They always said: "It was better then than now." And I saw that also. The police were spending their time hiding in their station, and the streets were empty of police. The more the fear of the KGB dissipated, the more crime and chaos.] You could see this clearly. The more distance the memory of communism was, the more crime was taking over.  

Still the point seems to be the same. To establish some kind of stability when everything is in chaos. But the order ought to be to first bring stability and then an free market democracy. Not the opposite.

So if one is connected with this highest area of value--when he falls he falls into its exact opposite the peak of evil

 It is an odd thing that you see in the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought that there is no cause and effect relation between subject and object (as Dr Kelley Ross makes clear in his blog site https://www.friesian.com/).

And in fact when I was looking at Physics I noticed that Newtons laws are expressed by the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian  in such a way that objects simply tend towards the lowest energy state [or in optics towards the highest energy state] [So one might be excused to wonder how to they know where the lowest energy state is? Are particles that smart?]The causes of things seem to be the actual laws of nature, not the physical forces. It is almost as if we live in a Platonic world where the really real are the laws of mathematics. The physical world is a shadow representation of the really real.

One advantage of the Kant Fries school for me is after one has worked out all the kinks which was done by Greta Hermann and Kelley Ross, it proved me a sort of template to understand my own experience. For seven years in Tzefat [Safed] I had what in various schools of thought is categorized as "devekut", the "Infinite Light", Samadhi etc. [Though I can not tell which is more to the point.] This is not religious fanaticism  but rather a direct experience of the Divine. Or sometimes even more--a direct connection with the Divine.-and absorption into the Infinite Light. But what you see in Kelley Ross is that this is just one area of value. Not all. In terms of the Ari one would say this is the area of value of "Keter" but lacks a;; the other areas. Thus one might have total devekut with God but lack any of the other areas of value. And even more so--each area of value is opposite to its exact opposite. So if one is connected with this highest area of value--when he falls he falls into its exact opposite the peak of evil   

He was dealing in this from strictly a legal standpoint, but I think he also saw some of the implications of using Torah as means to make money. One implication is the ruin of Torah.

The major place where the Rambam is critical of the yeshivas in his time is in his commentary on Pirkei Avot  דאשתמש בתגא חלף. ["One who uses the crown passes away."] [Not in the first place in Pikei Avot where this statement comes up but later in ch 4.] So he would not have been very happy with the kollel system. And even today it is a major shock to read what he wrote 800 years ago and basically is still impossible for anyone to swallow.  He holds that (I am paraphrasing) the heads of the yeshivot that say it is a mitzvah to give money to support these institutions are liars.

There should be yeshivot where people learn Torah, but they ought not to be means of making money.

But in his own days, the implications of what he wrote were clear to people and caused the first major controversy.

 He was dealing in this from strictly a legal standpoint, but I think he also saw some of the implications of using Torah as  means to make money. One implication is the ruin of Torah. Or rather-the ruin of sincere Torah. Those that are sincere are despised.

So while there is no promises, still the idea was the only way to deal with life's difficulties is to learn Torah.

 The general approach of the Mir Yeshiva in NY when it came to life's questions was "learn Torah". [In pain English that means the oral and written Law: the Old Testament, the two Talmuds plus the midrashim.] That was at least the basic idea I got by hanging around the rosh yeshiva, Rav Shmuel Berenbaum. That is there was an implicit awareness that life has tons of difficulties and most of which simply have no "solution". That is just the way life is. As Jordan Peterson puts it: "Life is hard." [He means that it is implicitly hard, not because someone else is making it hard.] 

So while there is no promises, still the idea was the only way to deal with life's difficulties is to learn Torah. 

[There are differences in approach however. How much in depth learning and how much fast leaning and the proper balance seems to differ from Litvak yeshiva to any other Litvak yeshiva.]

The only two things I would like to add to this is the idea of Physics and Mathematics being part of the command to learn Torah as you can see in the last of the first four chapters of Mishna Torah where "Pardes" is defined as Physics and Metaphysics as the Greeks understood them, and then later where it is stated that one should divide the learning time into Tenach, Oral Law, and Gemara and in the category of Gemara is ''Pardes." 

Plus the idea that even Math can be learned in that fast sort of way that is usually reserved for learning Gemara fast- that is to say the words and go on. 

crises [plural] in an individual's life

 The point of Rav Nahman of Breslov and the point of those learning his books is to address crises [plural] in an individual's life. It is not to define Torah. Nor is it actually to "be mehazek" strengthen one in keeping Torah-- though sometimes that is the effect. The cause of this is that something changed in human mentality in the 1700's. The old forms of community were still in place, but something about the modern mind changed. The issues and problems became very different.

This is very different from the sort of Musar (Ethics) books of the Middle Ages which were to define what it is that Torah requires from you in terms of Fear of God and character traits. They in essence explain what the Torah is all about in a practical sense. They are slightly different from books of the Middle Ages which deal more directly with the actual worldview of Torah. 

What were some of the crises that Rav Nahman was dealing with? The average layman could accept the idea that we ought to just learn and keep Torah plainly and simply.  But the problem was with religious leaders that seemed intent on fouling up the whole thing--and still are. So he deals with that often in e.g. LeM vol. I ch.s 8, 12, 28, 60, vol. II ch.s 1, 8  and many other places I forget off hand.

בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''אAt the very end of this i suggest an approach that might help understand this sugia. But without my learning partner, David Bronson, I am not sure how it all would fit together.

תוספות asks in of בבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א why do you need "therefore"? [היינו since they are required to build the wall, therefore they divide if it falls.]. Answers תוספות: it might fall into the domain of just one and he would be believed saying, "I built it" because he has a מיגו of saying, "I bought it." רב עקיבא אייגר asks, "Why do you need 'I bought it?'" Perhaps just "I built it" alone should be believed since it is in his domain except for the "therefore" of the משנה. To answer this question רב שך says if he would say "I built it", and if he is believed, that takes the wall out of its חזקה of belonging to both. He got the idea from  רב איסר מלצר the author of the אבן האזל. That means that he would not be believed to say I built it except for the possibility that he could have said I bought it. So now we know he can not even say that because they are both required to build the wall. רב שך suggests further that this might depend on a similar argument between תוספות and the Rambam in בבא מציעא דף ו' ע''א. The case is two people come into court holding a garment. The law is they divide. What happens if after that, one comes in and only he is holding it and says, "The other admitted to me that it is mine." The other says, "I rented it to him." The גמרא says, "He is not believed, because we say 'Until now you thought he is  a thief, and now you rented it to him without witnesses?" תוספות asks why do we need the "We are witnesses?" Answer: because there is a מיגו he could have said, "You grabbed it from me." So we see that in fact if he had said that he would be believed. So why not believe the first one that has the object? Because he says you agreed with me and by that he tries to place the other in the category of  a thief and so he is not believed. What רב שך is saying here is hard to figure out. It seems to me that both are accusing the other. And why would this have a חזקת מטלטלים after they were already in court and it was decided they should split? I would like to suggest that this is in fact the reason the גר''א in חושן משפט קל''ח  and the ריטב''א have a different answer for why he would be believed to say, "The other grabbed it," because it is talking about things that are commonly borrowed or rented out. That is what I think that note of the גר''א means over there. Furthermore the רמב''ם is consistent with his other opinion  about if one grabs after there is already a doubt [תפס אחר שנולד הספק] that we do not take it from him and the רא''ש holds we do take it from him. That is about the case of  "a כהן grabs a animal of tithe that is doubtful." So the רא''ש is just going with the תוספןת as usual. That is to say both of the pleas cancel since each is accusing the other of lying so we simply go with חזקה. And the one that has it now has no חזקה since he has it after there has already been born the doubt.

However the reason why I think the גר''א is right here is that תוספות is saying that the טענה "he took it from me" in the בבא מציעא דף ו' ע''א is believed in and of itself, not just because of the חזקת מטלטלים. So while the issue of  one party seized it  after the doubt is born is relevant, still that is not the reason for תוספות to say the actual טענה of "he seized  it" is believed.

תוספות שואל בבבא בתרא דף ב' ע''א מדוע אתה צריך "לפיכך"? [היינו מכיוון שהם נדרשים לבנות את הקיר, ולכן הם מתחלקים אם הקיר נופל.]. תשובת התוספות: זה עלול ליפול לנחלתו של אחד בלבד והוא יאמין באומרו, "בניתי את זה" כי יש לו מיגו לומר: "קניתי את זה." רב עקיבא איגר שואל, "למה אתה צריך 'קניתי את זה?'" אולי צריך להאמין רק "בניתי את זה" לבד מכיוון שהוא נמצא בתחום שלו, למעט "לכן" של משנה. כדי לענות על שאלה זו רב שך אומר אם הוא היה אומר "בניתי את זה", ואם מאמינים לו, זה מוציא את החומה מחזקה של שייכות לשניהם. הוא קיבל את הרעיון מרב איסר מלצר מחבר אבן האזל. זה אומר שלא יאמינו לו שהוא אומר "שבניתי את זה" למעט האפשרות שהוא יכול לומר "שקניתי את זה." אז עכשיו אנחנו יודעים שהוא אפילו לא יכול לומר את זה בגלל ששניהם נדרשים לבנות את החומה. רב שך מציע עוד שזה עשוי להיות תלוי בוויכוח דומה בין תוספות לרמב"ם בבא מציעא דף ו' ע''א. המקרה הוא ששני אנשים מגיעים לבית המשפט המחזיקים בגד. החוק הוא שהם מתחלקים. מה קורה אם אחרי זה, אחד נכנס ורק הוא אוחז בזה ואומר, "השני הודה בפניי שהוא שלי." השני אומר, "הישכרתי לו את זה." הגמרא אומרת, "לא מאמינים לו, כי אנחנו אומרים 'עד עכשיו חשבת שהוא גנב, ועכשיו הישכרת לו את זה בלי עדים?' תוספות שואל מדוע אנו זקוקים ל"אנחנו עדים"? תשובה: מכיוון שיש מיגו הוא יכול היה לומר, "תפסת את זה ממני." אז אנחנו רואים שלמעשה אם הוא היה אומר את זה שיאמינו לו. אז למה לא להאמין לראשון שיש לו את האובייקט? כי הוא אומר "שהסכמת איתי" ועל ידי זה הוא מנסה למקם את האחר בקטגוריה של גנב ולכן לא מאמינים לו. את מה שרב שך אומר כאן קשה להבין. נראה לי ששניהם מאשימים את האחר. ולמה שיהיה לזה חזקת מטלטלין אחרי שהם כבר היו בבית המשפט והוחלט שעליהם לחלק? ברצוני להציע שזו למעשה הסיבה שלגר"א בחושן משפט קל''ח והריטב"א יש תשובה אחרת מדוע יאמינו לו לומר "האחר תפס את זה" כי זה מדבר על דברים שמושאלים בדרך כלל או מושכרים. זה מה שאני חושב שפתק הגר"א אומר שם. יתר על כן הרמב''ם תואם את דעתו האחרת לגבי אם תופס אחרי שיש כבר ספק [תפס אחר שנולד הספק] שאנחנו לא לוקחים את זה ממנו והרא''ש מחזיק שאנחנו כן לוקחים את זה ממנו. זה בערך המקרה של "כהן תופס חיה של מעשר שהוא בספק." אז הרא''ש פשוט הולך עם התוספת כרגיל. כלומר שתי התביעות מתבטלות מכיוון שכל אחת מהן מאשימה את השנייה בשקר ולכן אנחנו פשוט הולכים עם חזקה. ולמי שיש לו עכשיו אין חזקה שכן יש לו את זה אחרי שכבר נולד הספק [ביניין תקפו כהן]. אולם הסיבה שבגללה אני חושב שהגר"א צודק כאן היא שתוספות אומר כי הטענה "הוא חטף את זה ממני" בבא מציעא דף ו' ע''א מאמינים כשלעצמה, לא רק בגלל של חזקת מטלטלין. אז אמנם הנושא של צד אחד תפס אותו לאחר לידת הספק הוא רלוונטי, אך עדיין זו לא הסיבה של תוספות לומר כי מאמינים בפועל לטענה של הוא תפס אותו  

Leonard Nelson

 There seems to be an argument about who is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. That would imply that 20th century philosophy had much to say.

However my suggestion is Leonard Nelson of the Kant Fries School. [His ideas are explained in plain English by Dr Kelley Ross on his Friesian.com site].

The reason is that Dr. Ross tends to combine a few admirable things. One is the rigor of the analytic school-and yet not be caught in their triviality. Two is deeply human concerns--that very things that were of great interest to Nietzsche. Third is that odd fact that philosophical profundity and political common sense usually so not come together, yet in Kelley Ross they do.

cease using Torah to make money.

The arise of science, and organized religion have produced a crisis in faith.

Organized religion is known to be at the cost of sincere religion. This theme you can see in the Prophets. [Just one example is in Isaiah at the very beginning where he does not think more sacrifices or more attendance at the Temple is a positive thing.  He reports that God is displeased with that.]

Science also does cause questions.

Since you can see this in the Old Testament itself, it seems best to keep Torah private. Though there are times that there is some use for organization. [As I saw in the great and amazing Mir of NY and Shar Yashuv also.] Still the general result comes at a cost of authentic Torah.

The organization tends to promise the absurd --you can have everything. No need for moral choice.

It seems not to be authentic. And that follows. Fraud follows organized religion as heat follows fire.

And besides that we know from Pirkei Avot, that Torah is not meant to be a means of making a living.

Rav Nahman clearly indicates this problem when he discuss the problem of Torah scholars that are demons. 

[What is the source of the problem of organized religion? Self deception, not hypocrisy. That is people willfully ignore their own evil. [You can see this problem brought up a lot in Dostoyevsky in Anna Karenina ,]

Since I have seen this problem a lot, to me it seems the best idea is to listen to the Mishna in Pirkei Avot to simply cease using Torah to make money.

Tosphot asks in the beginning of Bava Batra

 Tosphot asks in the beginning of Bava Batra why do you need "therefore" [that is since they are required to build the wall, therefore they divide if it falls.]. Answers Tosfot: it might fall into the domain of just one and he would be believed saying, "I built it" because he has a migo  [i.e a case of "he could have said such and such and be believed, so if  he puts in a different plea, he should be believed. For after all if he wanted to lie, he had a better way of doing so."] of saying, "I bought it."

Rav Akiva Eigger asks, "Why do you need 'I bought it?'" Perhaps just "I built it" alone should be believed since it is in his domain except for the "therefore" of the mishna.

Rav Shach says if he would say "I built it",  and if he is believed, that takes the wall out of its hazaka [prior status] of belonging to both. [He got the idea from Isar Meltzer the author of the Even HaEzel]

So to say, "I built it" would be believed only because "I bought it" would be believed. But as the mishna says here neither would be believed because both are required to build the wall.

Rav Shach suggests further that this might depend on a similar argument between Tosphot and the Rambam in Bava Metzia 6b. The case is two people come into court holding a garment. The law is they divide. What happens if after that, one comes in and only he is holding it and says, "The other admitted to me that it is mine."? The other says, "I rented it to him." The Gemara says, "He is not believed, because we say 'Until now you thought he is  a thief, and now you rented it to him without witnesses?"

Tosfot asks why do we need the "We are witnesses?" Answer: because there is a migo he could have said, "You grabbed it from me." So we see that in fact if he had said that he would be believed. So why not believe the first one that has the object? Because he says you agreed with me placing the other in the category of  a thief and so he is not believed.

It is times like this that I wish I was learning with David Bronson, my learning partner in Uman. For what Rav Shach is saying here is hard to figure out on my own. It seems to me that both are accusing the other. And why would this have a Hezkat [prior status] movable objects after they were already in court and it was decided they should split. 

I would like to suggest that this is in fact the reason the Gra [in Choshen Mishpat 138] and the Ritva have a different answer for why he would be believed to say, "The other grabbed it," because it is talking about things that are commonly borrowed or rented out.

[That is what I think that note of the Gra means over there.]

Furthermore the Rambam is consistent with his other opinion  about if one grabs after there is already a doubt that we do not take it from him and the Rosh holds we do take it from him. [That is about the case of "a cohen grabs a animal of tithe that is doubtful."]  

So the Rosh is just going with the Tosphot as usual. That is to say both of the pleas cancel since each is accusing the other of lying so we simply go with hazaka. And the one that has it now has no hazaka since he has it after there has already been born the doubt.

However the reason why I think the Gra is right here is that Tosphot is saying that the plea "he took it from me" [in the Bava Metzia case on page 6] is believed in and of itself, not just because of the hezkat metatalim [status of movable objects.] So while the issue of  one party seized it  after the doubt is born is relevant still that is not the reason for Tosphot to say the actual plea of he seized  it is believed.

"Secular learning" חכמות חיצוניות is something that Rav Nahman Breslov was against. However his disciple R Nathan takes it to a degree that I think was not in the intension of Rav Nahman.

"Secular learning" חכמות חיצוניות is something that Rav Nahman Breslov was against. However his disciple R Nathan takes it to a degree that I think was not in the intension of Rav Nahman. I do not think you can put pseudo science into the same category as legitimate science. And there are hints to this distinction in the LeM itself. It is along the same lines as when Rav Nahman spoke at length against going to doctors and yet when a medicine came to that area and was only available in a far away town Rav Nahman said even to take one's children in the middle of winter to get it.

So I think to go with the approach of the rishonim like Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam that held one ought to learn Physics and Metaphysics. But how much and how deeply if one is not exactly talented in these areas? I think one ought to get up to String Theory. But what does that require? Well, not a lot of what you might think. That is sure you need Algebra, but how much? I think unless one is going to become a professional Physicist, he or she does not really need to spend a lot of time on solving equations. One needs to know what it means to solve an equation but to actually find the zeros--where the equation hits the x axis you really just need to feed the equation into a graph function hand held calculator and see where the equation hits the axis. Same idea with Calculus. What one needs for Physics is one single integral , the Gaussian integral.  

x62 music file

 x62 E Flat Major  x62 midi  x62 nwc

A basic problem I see is the intersection between politics and philosophy.

A basic problem I see is the intersection between politics and philosophy.  And the attempt to bring some kind of method to the issues of politics. The thing which makes this a curious kind of problem is the odd fact that politics seems to makes progress against philosophy. Where philosophy leads, always seems to end up in some kind of totalitarian system. 

An example would be communism. A friend told Karl Popper the basic problem of communism is, "What is communism? It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. And who is the proletariat? Lenin and Trotsky."

And Karl Popper while one of the most powerful voices against totalitarianism, certainly was the inspiration of the Open Society organization that is attempting to take over the world and impose the most devastating tyranny that has ever existed.  

So what I think is this: that there always seems to take over some question in philosophy that occupies the central place for many generations until some new problem arises. The Greeks were occupied by the problem of "How is change possible" until Plato and Aristotle. Then the Middle Ages with faith and reason. Then starting with Descartes\ the Mind Body Problem. Now I would like to suggest the problem of "What is the relationship between Politics and Philosophy?" and as a side question "Why is it that philosophy seems to devour itself in the meantime." 

 Perhaps the the relation is this: Philosophy is destroying the West. And that is the cause of the rise of China? 

And what does the rise of China mean? It means to learn Chinese. And it means the rise of racism. That is Chinese think of themselves as one race. So if you are not Chinese, that means you are not in the inner circle. You will be reduced to giving most of your labor in tribute. [That is to say China does not expand in the same way as the West. It stays China and everyone else becomes tributary states.]

  

My impression is that there is no sickness at all.

 My impression is that there is no sickness at all. The purpose of this farce is because there is  a goal to bring down the world's population from 7 billion to 5 billion. The way to do that is by a syringe filled with stuff you know nothing about.

 The great thing about the Litvak yeshiva as built on the ideas of the Gra and Rav Israel Salanter is that it provides that context to live a life devoted to Authentic Torah- that is the sort of idea of the superorganism that Howard Bloom brings.

 Now to live according to Torah is hard from many aspects. One is that the religious world itself tends to be sort of insane. So to find a place that in fact is loyal to straight Torah is by no means simple or easy.

[The nice thing about the Litvak yeshiva world is that it is motivated by love of Torah, not hate of gentiles and secular Jews.]

So to merit to be part of an institution that stands for straight unadulterated Torah is an amazing thing.  

[It is hard to know what is worse. The Social Studies departments of universities or  religious psychos? I imagine one could go into STEM departments of universities. The difficulty with STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] is that there are too many pseudo sciences. And if you really want real science, well, not everyone has the talent  and IQ for that.] 

Avraham Abulafia,

To speak of Jesus in nice terms. If you say something nice, you are suspected of meaning more. In spite of that, I would like to say that there are some misconceptions about the whole subject. ביטול המצוות nullification of the commandments was clearly not in anything he said or did. That was a later stance of the church based on Paul-but not Jesus. As for the problem with worship, he even made it clear that one is not even to call him good. That was the incident when someone called him ''good master.'' He said not to call him good. Only God is good. So the church has one advantage that they respect a great tzadik. Yet, they take that respect way over the line.  

And the opposite approach has the disadvantage of wildly unreasonable disrespect of  a tzadik, and the seeking of every possible negative thing to say. That is also not right, and even worse than the former mistakes.

Better to have an accurate view. 

[The positive opinions are Avraham Abulafia, Rav Yaacov Emden, the Meiri.]

fear God is the key to everything, all good.the first step to coming to fear of God, I think is in fact just as Rav Israel Salanter thought--by an emphasis on the classical books of Ethics of the Middle Ages. And after that, the Physics and metaphysics.

To fear  God is a positive command. Even though it is not included in the Ten Commandments, it still is one of the many other commandments that are in the Old Testament. And one of the original sages of  Musar, Rav Isaac Blazer shows in his book "Or Israel" that it is the key to everything, all good and all holiness. [I have not read that book for some time, but the point was clear.]

However the Musar movement has a slightly different approach to this than what I have seen in the Rishonim. 

Most Rishonim go with the idea that to contemplate the works of God brings one to love and fear God.

This is explained in the Guide for the Perplexed that  it means learning Physics and Metaphysics. [That is what the Rambam says in a round about way. You have to put it all together. Start from the Introduction where he defines the work of Creation and the Divine Chariot as means the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics as the ancient Greeks understood them. Then later in the Guide he says that by learning the work of creation one comes to fear of God and by learning Metaphysics one comes to love God.

But this is not apparent because what people say they believe is different from what they actually believe. You can tell what a person actually believes based on his or her deeds, not their words. people with real fear and love of God do not look religious and make a point of keeping their love and fear of God internal.

They do not make a public show of their fear of God because they value it.

But what I would like to add here is that the purpose of this learning ought to be directed towards Fear of God and not towards understanding. So the way to go about this learning is to direct one's attention to love and fear of God, not towards getting good grades of making a living.

However to get back to the original point of Israel Salanter and Isaac Blazer, I would say that they are right about the emphasis on Musar in terms of orientation. That is to get a proper idea if what Torah is all about is only through the Musar of the Rishonim and Achronim. So the first step to coming to fear of God, I think is in fact just as Rav Israel Salanter thought--by an emphasis on the classical books of Ethics of the Middle Ages. And  after that,  the Physics and metaphysics.

[But I must add that Physics means real Physics, not layman's books. Metaphysics books means as the Greeks understood it as Ibn Pakuda [author of the Chovot Levavot] and the Rambam make clear.]

 

x62 music file

x62 mp3   x62 in midi  x62 in nwc

I gained great advice from reading the books of Rav Nahman. But I think that is not much of a reason to leave off the straight path of the Gra and the Litvak world of yeshivas. The way I see things now, it is best to be in or near a regular Litvak yeshiva in order to learn the straight path of Torah. Then for individual issues that come up it is useful to learn the ideas of Rav Nahman. 

But to go and become "Breslov" seems like a mistake to me.

That is from what I have observed. However for me personally I think, I have gained a great deal by the advice of Rav Nahman and also from my time being in Uman. 

Still if my advice means anything to anyone, I highly recommend to stick with the straight path of the Gra and Rav Shach--at all cost.

[It is however to be noted that not everything within the context of the Litvak path is something I agree with. I am merely saying that there is a array of values in which there is an equal and opposite array of values that attacks it. So while the value of authentic Torah is the path of the Gra and Rav Shach,still on the opposing side there are pseudo Torah scholars that are demons that attack that area of value. However I am not saying that that is the only area of value. For example there is the area of music which is also a holy value, but it has arrayed against it music of the Dark Side. That is to say that every area of positive value has against it a value and forces of the dark side that attack it constantly.

This was cause of the Gra to sign the letter of excommunication. He had in mind to warn people about the forces of the Torah of the Dark Side that were attacking the Torah of Truth, authentic Torah.

[I believe that Rav Nahman would not have been under the excommunication based on the actual wording in that letter.\]

Bava Batra on page four there is a Rashba

In Bava Batra on page four there is a Rashba that is brought in the Shita Mekubetzet that asks why does the Gemara ask "why do we need the mishna? Is not the law of the mishna simple"? The Rashba's question is perhaps it could be  a case of one party says "I built half the wall", and the other party claims "I built the whole wall". Would not the law then be one takes 3/4 and the other takes 1/4? So the law of the mishna would not be simple. We would need it to tell us that since they are both required to build it we say it both 1/2 to each. The answer of the Rashba is that since the place belongs to both, it is simple that we would divide 1/2 for each even if one would say, "I built it all," and the other would say, "I built 1/2."

This seems to go along with the Rambam. While the mishna says since they both have to build the wall, they divide the stones and the place equally if it falls. The Rambam says, since the place belongs to both, therefore they divide the stones. That seems like a contradiction. The mishna hangs the splitting of the place and stones on the fact that they both have to build the wall. The Rambam hangs the splitting of the stones on the fact that the place belongs to both. But it does not have to be a contradiction. It could be that the mishna is just saying the same thing in a shorthand way. And that is apparently exactly what the Rashba and Rambam mean. That the place is known to be of both and that is what causes the stones to be divided equally. [And why would the place be more simple than the bricks? Rav Shach suggests that the Rashba holds like Tosfot that the place is a case of D'rara DeMamona. That would answer why if one says he has 1/2 and the other all, they still divide by half.]

[All this is what I gathered from reading Rav Shach's explanation of the Rashba. ]

[The question that I have is that if this is the idea of the mishna, then it is a round about way of putting it.. It is saying: Since they both have to build the wall, therefore the ground belongs to them both. And then then the bricks belong to both. I mean what does building the wall have to do with the ground? But based on the Rashba I can see what would have forced the Rashba and the Rambam to understand in this way. That is the question of the Gemara, "Is it not simple?"]

 For some reason the great mystic of the Middle Ages Rav Avraham Abulfia is not well known and that seems like a tragedy to me. After all he was highly regarded by Rav Chaim Vital and the Remak רב משה  קורדבירו both. In fact that last gate of the Musar book of Rav Chaim Vital, vol.  4 [שערי קדושה] consists almost entirely of the system of Rav Avraham Abulfia,  and does not even mention the Ari. Plus the Remak quotes the books of Abulafia often in his Pardes [but just the titles of the books and does not mention the author.]

He did have an opinion about Jesus that is not well known. He held he was the messiah son of Joseph mentioned at the end of tractate Suka.  [The subject of messiah son of Joseph is dealt with also in the Kol HaTor of the Gra and the Ramchal. [That is the Tikunim Chadashim of the Ramchal]. 

The thing about the path of the Gra is that it places a lot of emphasis on not showing off one's religiosity

 I ought to mention that while I was in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY, I never learned Rav Chaim of Brisk's book nor Rav Shach. I only mention these two great books as being the prime examples of the deep kind of learning that I experienced in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. The actual classes and their lessons that I did learn and listen to were mostly never published.

I mean to say that the great Torah Scholar that I learned from in Shar Yashuv was Naftali Yeager and the Rosh Yeshiva of the Mir that I learned from was Rav Shmuel Berenbaum, but I doubt if anything they ever said was actual written down and kept safe for later generations. So in order to give people an idea of this deep kind of learning I simply latch onto the Chidushie HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.  

[I did learn achronim in both places like the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua and many other achronim on the Gemara. But that is different than Rav Shach and Rav Chaim.]

The thing about the path of the Gra is that it places a lot of emphasis on not showing off one's religiosity.

There is in this path [as I  experience this in Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY] an implicit awareness that what people say they believe is most often the exact opposite of what they actually believe. You can see this a bit in the verse כבוד אלקים הסתר דבר "the honor of G-d is to hide it," and "What does the Lord your G-d ask of you but... and to walk modestly with the Lord your G-d."

You see this kind of irony in Socrates also when he asked the slave about a question in Geometry that teh slave boy did not know the answer to but by careful questioning Socrates brought out that knowledge. And that was without any statement at all, just questions. That shows that there are things we know but we do not know that we know them. And also continually he showed that almost everything people think they know, they really do not know. Thus it is with faith. Those that show it off by rituals and clothes might think they have faith but are in fact empty.

Not every idea that anyone gets about some verse in Torah counts as Torah.

Not every idea that anyone gets about some verse in Torah counts as Torah. Not only that, but sometimes the effect is even negative. Rav Nahman of Breslov himself brings this idea that it is forbidden to listen of even to hear the Torah lessons of a wicked person.

To get some clarity about this, I learned the Mishna in Sanhedrin about "outside books" that are forbidden to learn. I discovered that the Rif and Rosh explain what are "outside books"? Books that explain verses of the Torah, but not based on a midrash Chazal. That is, they explain the verses in some way not like the sages of the Mishna and Gemara explained them. This would include the vast majority of books today that claim to be ''Torah books.'' But in fact, we see from the Rif and Rosh that they are "outside books."

[So natural science books are not "outside books". ]

"Just like you can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." No one imagines that someone today could write a new book of prophecy to add onto Isaiah. Similarly with the Oral law--the two Talmud and midrashim. Anything else is not included.

I can see that the system of schooling in  the USA is meant to help people find their forte and to go into that. But I hated taking tests. Still, with all that I still tried my best. But I can see the point of even going into what is not your forte. That is the whole point of all the rishonim that count learning Torah as one of the 613 commandments. That does not depend on whether one is smart or not.

But I have to say that learning Torah in  view of the rishonim is more limited than most people think. The view of the Rishonim is that Torah includes the Oral and Written Torah alone. That is the actual Old Testament and the two Talmuds and midrashim. So do commentaries on the Talmud count as "learning Torah"? That is not at all clear. I would probably include Tosphot and Maharsha and Rav Shach, but still there is  a limit. 

That is clear from the Rambam himself who wrote:  "Just like you can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so you can not add or subtract from the Oral Law." No one imagines that someone today could write a new book of prophecy to add onto Isaiah. Similarly with the Oral law--the two Talmud and midrashim. Anything else is not included.

However that is in terms of law. But these same rishonim do add two new categories to learning Torah: Physics and Metaphysics. But let's say that one is not so smart? Then is one no longer obligated? Certainly not. But then how to go about learning these difficult subjects? That is by the path of "Girsa" saying the words and going on.    [This method of learning is mentioned in Shabat I think around page 63, and also in Avoda Zara but I forget the page number.]

music files x57 and x59

x57  [x57 in midi] x57 nwc

x59 mp3  x59 midi

[x59 nwc format]

But there is also the evil inclination that is spiritual--the desire to do what is wrong because it is wrong, The "imp of the perverse" as Edgar Allan Poe calls it.

 Rav Nahman in the LeM vol. I chapter 72 holds that there is a continuum of the evil inclination from the very bottom of physical desires up until the angel of God [the Samech Mem/ aka the Satan]

This subject you can see also in the Letter of Musar of Rav Israel Salanter where he brings down that some Rishonim held the evil inclination to be physical desires. [But no completely physical. After all there are plenty of desires that are connected with our biology that are not physical completely but not spiritual either. E.g., the desire for power or honor. These desires we share with many species of animals like baboons as Sapolsky noticed. I even recall the picture of one beta baboon that dis-respected the alpha baboon. His pieces were found the next morning strewn all over the place.

But there is also the evil inclination that is spiritual--the desire to do what is wrong because it is wrong, The "imp of the perverse" as Edgar Allan Poe calls it.   

But I have also seen that people that do only the fast type tend to not really get the learning at all.

To me it seems you need a combination of learning fast along with deep in depth learning. I did notice that each type has its advantages. But I have also seen that people that do only the fast type tend to not really get the learning at all. On the other hand the slow and in depth type that you see in places like the Mir or Ponovitch tend to lack the broad perspective.

It looks to me that the only way that each type of learning really works well is when there is some kind of balance.

"Secular learning" חכמות חיצוניות is something that Rav Nahman Breslov was against. However his disciple R Nathan takes it to a degree that I think was not in the intension of Rav Nahman.

 You might have noticed there is an over abundance of insane people in the religious world and I think I can see why. Sapolsky at Stanford noticed the relationship between a mild case of schizophrenia and obsession with religious issues. It used to be on his second lecture of Schizoid personalities but Stanford apparently deleted it. The point is that while in the secular world religious obsessions are not well respected, but in the religious world they are thought to be signs of great holiness. And besides that people with mild religious obsession tend to be schizoid. So if you put  a lot of that all together, you get group behavior that is schizoid. Not just individual behavior. However the Litvak yeshiva world seem to be more or less OK. They do not seem much afflicted with these mental diseases as other parts of the religious world are.

I think, there is a way that knowledge enters the mind by reading the words forwards and backwards.

I used to do this myself at Polytechnic in NYU for Physics. As a matter of fact we do not know how knowledge enters the  mind. So this is as plausible as anything. And at last for me this seems to work but it only works in conjunction with learning fast. 

[The "learning fast" thing is advice from the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous in his Gate on Torah where he explains that that was the way of the rishonim [mediaeval people]. 

I would like to suggest that it is helpful to know if you are more Left brain or Right brain. The learning fast thing is more applicable to he right brain types. The detailed analysis more for the right brain types.

But you also need to combine both. So even right brain types, need a ertain amount of detailed analysis type of learning and left brain also need some amount of the learning fast type of learning. It is a matter of emphasis.

 vaccines

 X58

Rav Haim of Voloshin who was a disciple of the Gra a

 Litvak yeshivas were mainly based on the model of Rav Haim of Voloshin who was a disciple of the Gra and my experience in these kinds of places was amazingly positive. So even if I have fallen from that sublime wonderous path, I still feel a twinge of regret that I was not able to stay within that context. It is like they say you never know what you have until you lose it.

However I do have a suggestion for those that are willing to listen. To me it seem the problem for me and for many others is the fact that the Herem that the Gra signed is ignored. [That is somewhat related to the idea of excommunication but within the context of halacha it is much more serious.] 

So it might seem ironic that I quote Rav Nahman of Breslov often and yet also hold that the herem of the Gra is valid. However there is an easy answer for that. It goes back to a famous book that contained the actual language of the herem and there I saw that it did not apply to Rav Nahman.