Why is Musar--learning the works of Ethics of Torah important?

Why is Musar--learning the works of Ethics of Torah important? One reason is that often the very people that make their living by means of Torah can be the enemies of Torah.

The religious clothing and the whole song and dance about keeping Torah, can hide the agenda of getting naïve secular Jews to be slaves and servants and support of the patrician [morally-superior] class of the religious, [...that we secular Jews are just too stupid to understand or perceive. If only we would understand the moral and intellectual superiority of the religious we would just throw all our money at them and agree and acquiesce to subsistent on the bare minimum.]

That kind of thing can make it hard for simple people to learn Torah, and can take away the very desire to learn and keep Torah,-- i.e. by seeing the way the religious world is and acts towards baali teshuva [newly religious]. [And that is often atrocious.]

What does one do? I tend to say that Torah is important, and not responsible for those that misuse it. [The Romans even had a saying for this kind of thing, "Abuse does not cancel use." "Abusus non tollit usum."]

But that is not a really satisfying answer to this problem, since you assume that just learning and keeping Torah in itself ought to bring people to a higher moral level in which they would not be acting in such ways that clearly lack simple human decency. [Otherwise why learn it in teh first place?]

So it must be that there is something about the very way that they go about it is lacking some essential aspect. [Or that the religious are not in fact keeping Torah at all. Just the very opposite.]

This really great problem was addressed by Rav Israel Salanter in his efforts to bring the learning of Musar to people. 

While on one hand, this is a good answer for the problem--but not really all that powerful a cure. Mashgikim [spiritual directors of yeshivot] are often just failed roshei yeshiva that could not make the top grade, and so were appointed to be the spiritual directors.   

 And the further problem is that many people have found this kind of problem and their lives are destroyed, and yet have no shoulder to cry on since they are blamed themselves for what really lies at the feet of the religious world. 

From where does this disconnect come from? It seems to me that part of the reason is that a kind of force of evil got mixed up into the religious world. Something that the Gra tried to warn us about, but was not heeded. And that is found even in Litvak yeshivot.

What is the big deal you might ask? Because of something the sages of the Talmud said: :"The evil inclination abandons its attempts to seduce the while world and rest only on Israel. And then it abandons its efforts on Israel and takes itself to the Torah scholars." (That is to say that the very essence of the Dark Side is disguised in those that supposedly keep Torah).

[I am not saying that I am perfect in this regard. Rather that as well as I can keep the straight Torah path of the Gra all the better. And that I can wish that others might do the same and also pay more attention to the fact that he signed the letter of excommunication and repeated that fact several times afterwards, Showing that although we can not see this right off hand at first, still there is  a terrible danger that we may not see.]

 

My mistake was to leave the world of straight Torah of the Gra, Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.]

Rav Shach does emphasize the importance of learning Torah and Musar.  And he was certainly not thinking about going to university, even though his son did become a doctor.

So I ought to ask forgiveness from people that read this blog that I do seem to differ on that point.

My excuse is that I did not fit in the yeshiva world. Even though I love Torah and agree with the Gra and Rac Shach and Rav Israel Salanter, still I simply did not find my place there. So more or less by force of circumstances, I had to go to major in Physics at the Polytechnic Institute of NYU.

But I regret that I was not able to learn Torah and Physics both. So I still try as much as possible to walk in this middle path of Torah with Derech Eretz [way of the Earth].   

So is that a thing to aim for? Or is it better just to sit and learn Torah? That is clearly still an unresolved question. Some of the great Litvak Yeshivas of NY do in fact aim for both, like Chaim Berlin and Torah VeDaat. Others like the Mir do not. The Mir aims for just Torah all day, every day. I have to admit that I tend to the more balanced approach. 

[I would like to suggest that the religious world suffers religious schizophrenia and from a kind of desire to become a patrician class [to rule over us low-lifes]. So learning Torah and competence in Torah is not the thing that they aim for, but rather the appearance of competence in Torah. So there is a large difference between the insane religious world and the sane, straight world of Litvak yeshivas. My mistake was to leave the world of straight Torah of the Gra, Rav Israel Salanter and Rav Shach.]

There was a mystic of the Middle Ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia

 There was a mystic of the Middle Ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia who held that Jesus was the Messiah Son of Joseph who was mentioned in the end of the Gemara Suka. I used to learn the micro films of his writings  before they were published by some fellow in Mea Shearim. [After they were published, I got involved in other studies.] At any rate, to gain some clarity about this particular figure, I asked Professor Moshe Idel at Hebrew University about him. [Moshe Idel  published lots of books about him and that strain of mystic thought.] 

The way I got interested in Avraham Abulafia was that he was quoted a lot by Moshe Cordovero and Rav Chaim Vital as for his system of unifications. But I see that his thought was really much more than that.

[This is not unconnected with Philosophy. The general approach of the mystics of the Middle Ages and the Ari (Isaac Luria) himself was Neo-Platonic. In fact, I had some difficulty in the problem of faith and reason until I discovered Dr. Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian school [which is more or less based on Leonard Nelson]. Later I saw that Hegel also forms a kind of interface between these two approaches.]

Just because these strains of thought might be unfamiliar with people I think I should add one or two words to this note here to explain.

A basic problem about all of this is scientism. That is the doctrine that only what science measures can be true.  There is a lot more outside of science than inside science. So there is a place for faith. But faith is not flawless. It takes reason to be combined with faith to know in what should faith believe in.   

If you accept the opinion of some rishonim like Ibn Pakuda

 If you accept the opinion of some rishonim like Ibn Pakuda or the Rambam that learning ought to be in four divisions, Oral Law, Written Law, Metaphysics and Physics but you find that the learning does not come easily. The best idea is the saying of the words and going on without review until one gets to the end of the book and then to review again many time. This is in the gemara itself לעלם לגרס אנש אף על גב דמשכח ואף על גב דלא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר גרסה נפשי לתאווה "Always one should say the words even though he forgets and even though he does not understand what he is saying."

[That is called "Bekiut." But review is also important. The question is how much emphasis to give to each part.]

Gra who is classified as a rishon

The climatic end of the Rishonim was the Gra who is classified as a rishon but yet comes later as a sort of seal on the period. And the significant thing about the Gra was the purity. He defines what Torah is about--even for us folks that are not on that level to fulfill any or even most of the details. That is why I recommend having a yeshiva on the name of the Gra in every city. This would have the benefit that even us common folk can have an idea of true and authentic Torah is about, even if we are not up to that level of being able to fulfill it.

x72 music file

 x72

Rav Israel Salanter's and the idea learning books on Ethics.

 Rav Israel Salanter's and Musar [learning books on Ethics]. Learning the books of Musar tends to give a different impression of what Torah is about than what one would assume. Without Musar the tendency is to imagine Torah being about all kinds of things that it really is not. Even though that can exist even inside of Litvak yeshivas where Musar is learned, still the tendency is a lot less.

That is to say that Musar more or less defines the major emphasis of Torah as being about Love and Fear of God and good character traits. And it goes at length into defining what is good character. Since that is not at all obvious not easily apparent to pure reason, there is a need for Musar.

Why is it that Musar [books on ethics written during the middle ages] does a better job of this than later books is not clear, still the fact is that later books that are claiming to show what Torah is about are usually just examples of religious fanaticism and insanity, --the result of schizoid personalities. 

[Musar  refers to a small set of books written during the Middle Ages, but also can include the books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter or the Gra.] 

[The idea of Musar is predicated on the more general idea of Litvak Yeshivas that the Rishonim [medieval thinkers] define what Torah is all about.]

Hegel has an idea he adapted from Goethe that the universe is one organic whole like a plant. Not just that each part is possible to figure out, but that all parts are part of one system. There can not be any part of truth that contradicts the other. This is similar to the method of Socrates who was able to find self contradictions in the opinions of others. He was thinking that once one gets to truth, contradictions will not be there. 

Particles do not travel through what we would normally consider to be space and time

 Particles do not travel through what we would normally consider to be space and time. They can not have that kind of trajectory since then at any specific place on that trajectory they would have  a definite position and a definite momentum. Rather they travel through Hilbert space.[i.e. a complex vector space with inner product. But that is an inner product where the first term is complex. Not the same as the inner product with just the cosine. (QM needs the "i" for it does not work without it.)] So they do not have classical values in space and time as the Bell inequality shows. That is: the Bell inequality does not show non locality [or as sometimes called causality] as some people have suggested that are not familiar with QM. Rather  they have values in Hilbert space. [So Bell's inequality does not show anything against relativity.]

[The way to conceive of this is that particles travel on a sphere inside the Hilbert space.]

There is a sort of limit to the areas where pure reason can reach as Kant showed.

 There is a sort of limit to the areas where pure reason can reach as Kant showed. And he also saw that when human reason attempts to pursue areas beyond what is beyond the possibilities of experience, that it comes up with self contradictions. Furthermore he saw a sort of psychological insight from that observation. That people that do attempt to probe into areas beyond the possibility of experience tend to go insane. So you can see why in the Litvak Yeshiva world, interest in mysticism is usually discouraged.

[However, that does not mean that I distrust anyone with spiritual insight. For example, the Gra himself   and from the middle ages, Rav Avraham Abulafia. Rather, it is just not something to do unless one is really on that level. Plus, there is the problem of discernment.]

The kind of approach that I take towards issues of faith is more or less this. That moral principles are universals. [I.e., laws or characteristics. Moral laws are universals since they are laws that things have in common. Like: it is wrong  to torture people for the fun of it. That is a law that applies to people, and they have in common.] And some universals are known or can be discerned by reason. Also morality is objective and not reducible to physical laws. See G.E. Moore and Prichard.  

x71 music file mp3 midi and in nwc format

 x71 Needs editing--but I have no way to access an mp3 program right now

x71 in midi x71 in nwc

Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others

 Most of what you think and say are things you picked up from others. They are not original thoughts. That is why there is this idea of Rav Nahman of talking with God while being alone and trying to get in real contact with who you really are, and talking with God from your inner essence, not just what you have heard from other people. 

Why is authenticity important? After all if one is thinking of it as being important because I picked up the idea from the existentialists, then it in itself is not authentic.

The reason is that there is a discernable limit how much one can pick up until his whole inner essence gets erased. You can see this in undergraduate of high school papers which are often a large mixture of clichés.

You can hear this in people's conversation where almost every word is some "buzz word"  they picked up from he media or friends. 

I admit even after learning the existentialists I was not very impressed until I heard Jordan Peterson point out some of the good points that some of them brought up.]

I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors.

 I should mention in terms of Rav Nahman, that he was highly suspicious of doctors. [See Conversations of Rav Nahman, paragraph 50] And there is plenty of reason for that. However I also want to mention that in Uman there were great doctors. [Not trained during the time of the USSR, but later under Capitalism.] They were amazing at diagnosis and treatment. During my last period there, I had broken my foot by being chased by dogs outside of Sofia Park. I had not known how serious the injury was and collapsed on the street. Passersby called an ambulance, and I was brought to the local hospital. [Immediately given tests to see in anything else was wrong and then a bed, and never a word was said about payment.] The doctor, Sergei Alexivitch, and the whole group of doctors and nurses did an amazing job. The woman in charge of anesthesia was supper careful about not over doing it, but gave only local anesthesia-(instead of general which she realized could have been dangerous).  A nurse, Irina, held my hand to give me encouragement the whole time of the operation. [He is a young doctor who took his training after the USSR in the Institute at Dnieper. I would not have agreed to an operation if the doctor had been the same one that had been there during the time of the USSR  because even among the general people that doctors had a reputation as terrible. But not all that were trained during the period of the USSR were like that. I had experiences with older doctors also there that were highly competent.] 

The degree of care, concern and quality of care was astounding.

[That was just one example, but there is more to say because I was hanging around in that area because of my learning partner in Gemara, David Bronson. I should mention here also that the level of learning that  received from David was not less than Rav Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in NY, or Rav Naftali Yegger in Shar Yashuv.\

 As far as the vaccine is concerned see: 

Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab.

A 41-year-old health worker in Portugal suffered a “sudden death” just two days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. According to the EuroWeeklynews, Sonia Azevedo, a mum-of-two had no prior health conditions and hadn’t had any adverse effects after getting the Pfizer jab. Sonia worked at the Institute of Oncology in Porto before she collapsed on New Year’s Day. An autopsy is expected to be completed in the coming days to establish the cause of death.

I should mention that near Uman is a hospital called the regional hospital that I went to also. That was after my foot injury I had been in bed and so my intestines were not moving as if I had been walking around. So I had abdominal pain and went to that regional hospital. The medicine they recommended for me worked within a about two minutes after taking it. And that was my general experience with doctors in Uman. They knew exactly what to recommend for what ever my problem was. They were extremely\ competent\. 

 x70 D Minor

x70 midi file x70 nwc

Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10]

Rav Shach says that both Rav Acha ben Ika and R. Abahu [in tractate Sanhedrin page 3] hold that one person can judge a case. [Meaning cases between two individuals.  The issue before Rav Acha and R Abahu is judging cases of civil law that come up between people. Not only that, but there can be cases where even the great Sanhedrin is wrong and has to itself bring sacrifices for making wrong judgments in cases involving karet [cutting off.] In those cases, if an individual knew better than the Sanhedrin then he is required to bring his own sacrifice, for he should not have followed the Sanhedrin when it was wrong. Thus we learn that objective morality does not depend on what the Sanhedrin says or on what anyone says. Objective right and wrong means that what is right is right, no matter what anyone says.]

At any rate, there is a debate between Rav Acha and R.Abahu if one person can be called a "court of law" [beit din] for laws that relate to a court of law, like admission before a court is different than admission outside a court.

You can see the point of Rav Shach right away in the Rambam Laws of the Sanhedrin chap. 2 [paragraph 10] where it says that a court of law is not less than three people even though one person can judge a case. Some rishonim (mediaeval authorities)[e.g., Rashba] thought that  means the Rambam poskined/decided like Rav Acha but Rav Shach says that to both Rav Acha and R Abahu, one can judge but to R Abahu he is not a court of law.    The proof that Rav Shach is right is that the Rambam writes, "If one judges that is Ok from the Torah, but from the words of the sages we need three. And two that judge, their judgment is not a judgment." If the Rambam would be poskening like Rav Acha ben Ika, then he would say two that judge, their judgment is a judgment. [To R. Abahu their judgment is not valid and that is what the Rambam wrote there so it does look at least in this place that the Rambam is going like R Abahu.] So he goes like R. Abahu and that shows that even R Abahu holds that one can judge from the Torah but is not considered a court of law.

However clear this might be in this place, still Rav Shach brings a few questions on this idea that I think would have given reason to the Rashba, the Ran, and the Keseph Mishna to say that the Rambam in fact poskined like Rav Acha. 

The question of Rav Shach about his own idea is this: R. Abahu holds "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] so that all civil law needs a court of law of three. One is not a court of law to him. Then why is Iraq/Bavel [Babylon] can a civil court judge only cases of admissions or loans? That we can understand to Rav Acha who makes a difference between them and cases of injury or theft which are cases the Torah says needs a court of three people with ordination from mount Sinai. [That is the authentic ordination.] But To R. Abahu all cases are like that, and are judged in Iraq [anywhere outside of Israel] only because of the courts there being representatives of the court in Israel. But to Rav Acha there is no representation. They judge because they are a court --just not one that can judge cases where the Torah requires explicitly three judges with the authentic ordination which can not exist outside of Israel.

What is an issue here for me is that "mixing of paragraphs" [eruv parshiot] comes up in Bava Metzia  circa page 98. It seems if we hold of such a principle in one place we ought to hold of it elsewhere also.  

Government is something that is better not to get involved with.

 אל תתוודע לרשות "Don't be known to the government" [from Pirkei Avot]. Government is something that is better not to get involved with. However from the time of Socrates and Plato, it has been a subject of philosophical debate, but better not to be involved with. It does not really help you to be a better person, or gain good character or even get anywhere in life. it might be a subject of debate and perhaps there is some point in trying to apply reason to government, but when that happens the results are the opposite of reasonable.

a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason.

In the Kant-Fries-Nelson school of thought there is a kind of knowledge that one knows but not by sense perception and not by reason. But this is not emotion either. Nor by structures imbedded in the brain

There is a tendency to understand Fries as ''psychologism'' [all in the mind[. And if that would be all there is to it, then I would not be impressed. But the way Dr. Kelley Ross understands and explains that school in a different way that made a lot of sense to me.

But there is a sort of conflict between this school of thought and Hegel-- which to me seems unjustified since they are dealing with different subjects. Hegel does not deal with how we know things. Empirical versus a priori. Rather with the very structure of reality itself.

So to me both the Kant-Fries and Hegel schools of thought seem important. Kind of like Plato and Aristotle are important, but not that we ought to choose between them. There is something to learn from both.

[As for the best of present day thinkers I would have to go with Dr. Kelley Ross at the Kant Friesian web site .]

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.]