a path that expands on the idea of the Gra to finish Shas to add to that to get through Physics and Metaphysics.

 I would like to suggest  that in all Litvak yeshivas even though the emphasis is on slow painstaking exact learning, still it is understood that in one's spare time he does get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot. It is thought that no one has the right to any opinion in Torah thought until he has finished Shas at least once.

But that really is just the bare minimum. The actual idea of the Gra is to finish the two Talmuds and all the Midrashim, midrashei agada  and midrashei halaka. 

But add to that the idea of some of the Rishonim of the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, I would like to suggest these last two the the set that one ought to get through at least once. That is math up until Abstract Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry and Physics up until String Theory.

You can see this in the Gra himself who said what ever lack of knowledge one has in any of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred times more. [Intro to translation of Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolov a disciple of the Gra.]

[The Metaphysics that the Rishonim are referring to is the set of books by Aristotle of that name. But also to the wider set of Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant to that list.]  

alternative math

 

the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

 The place in the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov where he discusses the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

This is tied to the idea that one needs stubbornness to merit to true Torah. But there is a sort of stubbornness and arrogance of the Dark Side. So not everyone that claims to be teaching Torah  can be trusted or accepted since their Torah might be the Torah of the Sitra Achra. In fact, since we know from the Ari that the Dark Side is the majority rule in this world, so one ought to expect that most of those that claim to teach Torah are not from the Realm of Holiness. Rather they are probably teaching the Torah of the Dark Side.

According to the rules Rav Nahman gives there in that Torah lesson, it is clear that in place like the Mir and other Litvak yeshivas were there is humility, there is also true and authentic Torah. 

[You could go further into this subject by pointing out that not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah. The Rif [Rav Isaac Alfasi] explains in Sanhedrin chapter 11 "Helek" that when R.Akiva said one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world refers to books that explain the Torah but not according to midrashei chazal [ the explanations given in the Gemara and or midrashim. Some books would be OK like the books of Rav Nahman or the Or HaChaim since they are simply explaining the Torah based on the midrashim of the sages." So when it says, "Everything that even the smallest student offers" in way of explanation, that refers to explaining the Midrashim that explain the Torah. Not coming up with explanations of his own on Torah." So not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah.]

According tp the criterion of Rav  Isaac Alfasi it would be hard to a kosher book among thee religious .They all make up commentaries not based on midrahei chazal.

 

Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot t

 There is something I have been puzzled about in Rav Shach.  A convert and idolater that inherit from their father, the convert can say to his brother the idolater "Take the idols, I the other stuff." But not if they are partners in business. That we know from the Gemara. The odd thing that Rav Shach comes to answer is why the Rambam in laws of forbidden foods says the reason the convert can not say this in the case of partnership is because the convert wants the existence of the idols to continue. Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot that there is an opinion that even by two different sorts of things we still say there is retroactive choice. That much seems clear and a good answer for the Rambam. The puzzling thing is the reason Rav Shach says this argument exists in the Gemara. He says the opinion that holds there is retroactive choice in two sorts  holds there is not money in two sorts when we are talking about inheritance. The questions here jump out and that is why I have not written anything about this.

I still hope someday this will become clear. In the meantime let me just say some of the questions. (1) Money value or not should not determine if there is retro-active choice or not. (2) The case Rav Shach comes to answer is that of partners, not inheritors. So there is money in the objects and there should not be retro active choice. [Other questions I have forgotten for now.] 

depths of Tosphot.

 A lot of people are not aware of the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. I myself was unaware of this in even though I knew there was an emphasis on in depth learning in Shar Yashuv and all Litvak yeshivot. But I had no idea of how to get to the depths. Like a deep sea diver--one needs the proper equipment,

So my year of study of Hulin I just did the Gemara with some Tosphot. And the class given by Rav Forest went into some Tosphot and rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch with the Taz and Shach on each subject. 

I learned on my own the Maharsha and Rashba, Ritva and Tosphot haRosh. Still I had no entry clearance into the depths of the Gemara until I asked Naphtali Yegeer a question on Tosphot. Then Before I could explain the question he asked me to say over the question and answer of Tosphot, When I started to do so I could feel a sort of of bump in the Tosphot. There he showed me that tosphot is intending some deeper level. Some question that Tosphot means to ask in around about way. but then would naturally occur a deeper question and there too in Tosphot itself would be the answer to that next question and thus one would go on for about twenty levels successively getting deeper and deeper. So I became aware of this depth in Tosphot even though I could not get there myself.

At the Mir in NY the sort of learning was very much along the lines of Rav Chaim of Brisk.--But the classes were not in Rav Chaim's book but rather the roshei yeshiva had there own new ideas in every class that were along the lines of Rav Chaim. It was like a continuation of of Rav Chaim. [The Roshei yeshiva there never wrote their ideas --all except the first year teacher who wrote the Sukat David which was a synopsis of his classes.] 

I still was not able to get to this level of depth, but I was aware that it existed sicne the window to it had been opened to me once. Later in Uman when David Bronson came I saw this level of depth again. He had learned in the yeshiva of the Gra in Jerusalem of Rav Silverman. [This seems to be a proof that the real authentic spirit of Torah is found only in Litvak yeshivas.]

the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals.

 Kant comes up with an idea of intellectual intuition as a way to understand our limited faculty of reason as being dependent on external input. But that seems to be not exactly so. Rather it is possible that the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals. This point of the Intuitionists [GE Moore, Prichard] seems quite true. To Kant intellectual intuition would have to create its own objects. But that doesn't seem to be so.

Hegel also criticizes  this idea of Kant from a different angle. One is that this idea in itself points to the connection between Being and Reason. This connection Kant recoiled from. Hegel also used an argument that one can not recognize that something is finite unless he has gone beyond it and seen the point at which it stops. So to recognize intellect as being limited means one has already gone beyond it. 

learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics

Only after some time was I aware of the rishonim that hold of the importance of learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics. That fact was not well known in Shar Yashuv or the Mir. It seems to me that even if I would have known about this I still would not have gone to the local university since I had no method of doing math at the time. [I was not aware of the path of learning of just saying the words and going on could be applied to math and physics. And philosophy as it was taught then in universities did not appeal to me at all. It seemed to me that philosophy was vacuous meaningless and when it comes to some some conclusion it is invariably wrong and lunatic. [It seemed that Kant was barely mentioned, and the universities were all into existentialism or "analytic philosophy."] If I could go back in time, I would today probably try a more balanced approach. Half day Gemara and Tosphot and half day Physics. (Philosophy I would still avoid unless it would be about basics--Plato Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant.)

world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living.

 There is some thread of wholesome clean living that permeates the Litvak yeshiva world and all those who walk in the path of the Gra and Musar. It is not something that I can put my finger on exactly, It is not physical cleanliness. Rather is is a sort of aura that a group has when it is devoted to good character traits.

But on the other hand there can be the problem that not every individual is like that. Even the leaders. Still the general feeling I have of that world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living. But one needs some sort of merit to stick with this. 

Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point.

 Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point. (That reason can be synthetic a priori.)  Hegel thought that by a process he called "dialectic" reason could progress beyond areas of possible experience in the dinge an sich. [But his dialectics did not progress as science in which a priori and empirical evidence work together but rather dialectic in finding contractions in the concepts themselves until one gets to the Absolute Idea, the Logos of Middle Age philosophers. ] Fries answers this question in a different way saying that there is non-intuitive immediate knowledge. And the intuitionists like Michael Huemer hold the whole question is ridiculous in the first place since why limit reason? Based on some misconception of Hume? [about the idea that reason can only tell your what is already implicit in definitions.

This results in my idea that each of these three schools has a good point  and ought to be part of the cannon of philosophy --Kant-Fries. Hegel. G.E. Moore.    

[Another aspect of Kant that is hard to understand is the core idea that the categories unite the intuitions [the sense perceptions]. As Kelley Ross points out that this is an important point. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. You need all the functions of the mind  to process the information. But my question is "Who is the user"?

.

Conversation 76

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman is brought how he would go through four pages of the large Shulhan Aruch of Rav Karo during the time when people would start to gather in the morning to pray until they started praying. [At a normal pace of reading that would take about 2 hours if you take about 40 minutes to get through one page with the Magen Avraham and Taz plus the other commentaries. But lets say that in his days the large Shulchan Aruch did not have all the smaller commentaries, just the two on the sides [Shach and Taz and their parallels in the other volumes.] Still it would take at least an hour. So we know that Rav Nahman was reading more than fast. He was reading very, very fast. 

Ok you might say, that was because he was smart. But that is not the point. The point in Conversation 76 is that everyone ought to learn fast. As it says there "All you need in learning is to say the words in order and then to go on. And if you do not understand right away, eventually you will understand [by reviewing the book again and again.] And even of you never understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above everything else." לא צריכים בלימוד רק האמירה לבדה, לומר הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם אינו מבין  תיכף יבין אחר כך ואם יישארו כמה דברים שאינו מבין מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל

[However in Torah learning, I could not do things in exactly that way. In fact, in Litvak yeshivas the morning is for in depth learning, and the afternoon for fast learning. However this advice of Rav Nahman I found to be the only way I could get any Mathematics at all. For lots of review in Math made no sense to me. If I did not understand at first, then review did nothing. It did not matter if it was lots of review, or a little. So the only way I could get into math at all was by this method of Rav Nahman, and in fact, eventually I would start to get the idea (just like he said). That maybe does not make me a Peter Scholze or Fesenko, but I certainly understand a lot more than if I would not have learnt at all.

to object to some crime.

 There is a positive aspect to "be מוחה" to object to some crime. You can see this in the events of the concubine of Giva [in Book of Judges] where the whole tribe of Benjamin was considered guilty because they did not object. Also the Gemara goes into this in Gitin in the events of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza.

So I continue to object along the lines of the Gra and Rav Shach even though it is clear to me that I will not be listened to.  I do not do this on my blog since here, the whole idea of writing is in order to explain things that can be understood. But the fact of the Gra and Rav Shach objecting to evil is not understood and impossible to explain to people. The only people that were trying to warn others were the Gra, Rav Shach, Rav Israel Odesser of Breslov. But they were ignored\. 

music files. z11 z12

 z11 B Minor  z11 midi  z11 nwc

z12 mp3  z12 midi   z12 nwc

I found home work frustrating when I was in high school. I could not get home until after 600 PM each evening. And by that time I was pretty much tired out from the whole day. [I had two choices: I could walk home or wait for my dad to pick me up after his work at TRW. [Those are the people making satellites.] The result was always  that I was too tired to do much homework.] So when I got to Shar Yashuv in NY and the Mir, I was thrilled because of learning what has great value [Gemara]. And the atmosphere in a Litvak yeshiva tends to be highly conducive towards study.  I was a fish in water. 

[I ought to mention that the rosh yeshiva, Rav Freifeld, did ask me to also go to Brooklyn College, but I felt I could not divide my attention at that point.]

If I could today somehow manage to combine learning Gemara and also Physics and Math, I would do so.   

American Indians were generally at war with each other.

American Indians were generally at war with each other. Nor was slavery a foreign concept to them. They generally enslaved other tribes when they had the power to do so. [e.g. the Shawnee tribe would roast the captured men alive,  eat them and enslave the rest. The women generally were the commandants that would choose who would live and who would be digested.] So when a certain tribe of  Germanic tribes called Anglo-Saxon came, that was not particularly a new thing. Just more of the same except in one detail.  [See the  Ohio Frontier by Douglas Hurt published in 1996]

In Ohio the first Indians were destroyed by the Iroquois. So the Shawnee and other tribes chased them out until they in turn were chased out.  

the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon

 Rav Nahman said the evil inclination of religious people is a "dibuk" i.e a demon that takes hold of their minds that they can not get freed of even when they want to. You can see this in a lot of religious people. Some sort of insanity takes hold of them that even they must realize to some degree is really lunacy. But that realization does nothing to free them.

there are parasites in the oceans and seas

 It might seem not all the relevant to this blog but I wanted to mention that there are parasites in the oceans and seas. An example is the teredo. Columbus on his 4th voyage to South America discovered a worm that literally ate up his ships.  Not a single ship was sea worthy after being eaten by that worm. So I wanted to mention that sometimes humans can also encounter parasites when they go to the beach. So what I wanted to mention is that these worms do not like to be squished. If one finds under his skin a parasite, I recommend squishing that area. That is much more effective than applying any type of medicine. בחולין מובא סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא In tractate Hulin it is brought the question why a danger to life was brought up in one discussion.. The answer was danger to human life is more be stressed that prohibitions.

Robert E Lee he sent a letter to the Secretary of War of the North objecting and signed "your humble servant."

 One of the greatest heroes of the Civil Was was Robert E Lee.  When he saw Northern soldiers under orders of General Pope [ a Northern general replacing McClellan]  maintain Nazi tactics [to take rob and plunder and much worse] against the populations of the South, he sent a letter to the Secretary of War of the North objecting and signed "your humble servant." When the shoe was on the other foot- when Southern troops were in control of Pennsylvania, their conduct was exemplary under orders or Robert E Lee. They did not touch the property or belongings of anyone under pain of death.[See the actual order signed by Robert E Lee. ] People in Pennsylvania said they would rather quarter 40,000 troops of the South than 1,000 of the North --their own side! [That was a statement of a Pennsylvanian farmer to a northern reporter.]

black masters slave owners.

 Black people are now enslaving white people. Forcing them to work for them for what is called welfare, but is in fact forced labor--forcing people to work without recompense. So the objection to slavery is not sincere. Rather the objection is that blacks want to be the masters. 

[The goal is a exchange of white masters for black masters.]

z10 music file

 z10 C major  z10 midi  z10 nwc

 History is I think the main reason for the opposition towards Jesus. Especially the expulsion from Spain is certainly foremost in the minds of most Sephardim. Yet learning the actual history of the bitter struggle to rid Spain of Muslim overlords gave me an idea of why Isabella and Ferdinand thought it would be best not to have  a "fifth column" of people that were either active  in helping the Muslims, or at least were certainly on the Muslim side in terms of ideology --thinking (as they still do) the Muslims were not idolaters as they think Christians are.

 

Columbus received his commission to  just as Isabella and Ferdinand were entering Granada, the last stronghold of Muslim rule in Spain. And that is exactly when the decree was issued. I.e. in simple terms the king and queen were not making any distinctions at that time. All enemies had to go.

And as for the idea of Christians being idolatrous has seemed to me less than accurate after learning some of the  books of Avraham Abulafia [a mystic of the middle ages.] [Only printed recently. Mainly he is brought in the Remak [Rav Moshe of Cordova] and Rav Chaim Vital. I saw his books only in microfilm. Later they were printed.]  

So then why would it not be idolatry? You would have to resort to the idea of souls of Emanation [a frequent concept in the Ari/Rav Isaac Luria]. And Emanation is pure Godliness.  

 The major reason why some rishonim [mediaeval authorities] hold one ought to learn Physics and Metaphysics is that they see this as the fulfillment of the commands to love and fear God. So the issue does not depend on talent. Rather they see these two subjects as an integral part of Torah. But as you can see in the Guide for the Perplexed that they were referring to these subjects as understood by Aristotle. But they have gained in the meantime. So I think that today one ought to learn Physics up until String Theory. Metaphysics is a bit less well established --exactly what it includes. I suggest Kant, Fries, Leonard Nelson.  [There is a certain tension between this school of thought and Hegel, but both seem to have good points.]

  Kelley Ross has a  great web site introducing the approach of Kant and Fries 

SPERBER also has a nice essay on this

I can see why the testing system that you find in school is important to some degree. You do not want unqualified people teaching Physics or other subjects. On the other hand, tests can be frustrating and can discourage people. 

My feeling is that everyone can learn Physics and Mathematics, but not everyone can be a physics professor. 

The first thing one needs is the idea that it is important to learn, even for one that is not particularly talented.  Why is it important? Mainly you see this in חובות לבבות ומעלות המידות ומורה נבוכים Obligations of the Hearts, Greatness of Good Character, and the Guide for the Perplexed.

[Ibn Pakuda, Binyamin the doctor, and Rambam/Maimonides.] In particular the Rambam spells it out in the Guide in the parable of the country of the king at the end of vol. III or vol. IV [I forget which].

The next thing one needs is to say the words and go on from beginning to end. That type of fast learning is brought in Gemara, and Ways of the Righteous, and also Rav Nahman of Breslov brings it in Conversations of Rav Nahman 76.

Then the next thing is review. But I have not figured out about review if there is any one method. Myself I go back page by page. But review might have other methods.

  

 It seems to me that I ought to mention a bit of my background. I was at two very great Litvak yeshivas that walk in the path of the Gra: The first was Shar Yashuv in Far Rockaway for what I think was 3.5 years. The second year was tracate Chulin. The third was tractate  Ketuboth. Then for half that year was tractate Yevamot. Then I was at the Mir in NY also for about three years and then Israel. During the time I preparing for Israel, I got interested in Rav Nahman of Breslov. And during that first period in Israel, I was pretty much going with the path of Rav Nahman--that is a lot of going out into the forests doing "hitbodadut" [that is private prayer and talking with God in one's own language.].  Looking back on it all it seems to me that I would have done better to stick with the straight Torah approach of the Mir and the Litvak yeshiva, and tried to combine that with the great advice and ideas of Rav Nahman. 

That is to say,- I think it would have been better to try to stick with the great aspects of the path of the Gra--in terms of learning Torah and Musar, and to combine that with the good ideas of Rav Nahman. 

There is a tendency with Breslov to get off the track of learning Torah and straight Torah. Not that this was any fault of Rav Nahman himself, but there does seem to be that sort of danger. The mistake is understandable since the actual letter of excommunication of the Gra is not well known and who it applied to. What I suggest is that letter of excommunication is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman as you can see if you see the actual language of that letter.  I think the actual herem is valid and yet does not apply to Rav Nahman.

z9 music file

 z9 F Minor   z9 in midi

 I think that the worship of dead people that permeates the religious world is some sort of idolatry. The reason I say this is that you can see in the Rambam that he defines idolatry as the worship of any being at all besides the First Cause. So worship pf dead people probably fits with that definition.

 The worship and love the religious have for the dead takes over their souls and bodies and they become zombies.=people with dead souls. 

That would be the reason for the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. He apparently thought worship of dead people is not in accord with Torah.

 Gerard 't Hooft [Physics] has an interesting idea that Quantum Mechanics is due to variables that move very fast. Not hidden variables. Nor any pilot wave. And in his theory space time itself is quantized. So how do you get from here to there? Maybe by worm holes? I mean to say that the connections between space might be worm holes. [This worm holes that connect between black holes in the core of atomic particles  I think was suggested by Robert Penna in NY [I should mention that I saw this idea of Robert Penna in a paper by Salwa Alsaleh whose papers I was reading.]

 Emma Goldman wrote a book that was against the Bolsheviks. Her Disappointment with Russia she called it. Socialism sounds good until it is put into practice.

But I was never impressed with Socialism the first place because I always felt that no matter how good a theory seemed or how logical it was, if the facts showed it is wrong, then it is wrong.

Rashba [Rav Shmuel Ben Aderet] in Kidushin page 17

I have been thinking about a Rashba [Rav Shmuel Ben Aderet] in Kidushin page 17 for some time already. He asks from inheritance of a convert. He could not say to his brother "take the idols and I will take the other stuff," if inheritance of a convert was from the Torah. So we see "there is no choice" אין ברירה [going back in time.] But one brother can say to another, "You take the produce in one place, and I in another," and his idea is to get the produce which already has the tithes taken from it. The Rashba answers that there is choice in one sort of things, but not in two sorts. Then he asks from a gemara in Temura where you have two partners dividing up ten sheep against 9 and  a dog. All the ten that are opposite to the set with the dog are considered the "price of a dog" and therefore can not be brought as sacrifices. The Gemara asks let one sheep be for the dog and the rest would be OK. So from that question we see there is choice even by two types. אפילו בשני מינים יש ברירה

Rav Shach suggests that even in dividing among inheritors there is some ambiguity if the act is as they are buyers, but the actual things they are dividing are thought to be simply inheritance. Or if in the objects themselves there is an ingredient of being buyers. So the Gemara that holds one brother could not say "Take the idols," holds they are buyers, but the other Gemara in Temura holds they are inheritors [in two types] and so the saying of ''take the idols" would not be forbidden except for the fact that he agrees to the existence of the idols which makes that act forbidden. [It would not be forbidden because of "no choice since we see in Temura that "there is choice"יש ברירה  even by two sorts of things.]

 Rav Avraham Abulafia was the most neglected of all the mystics of the middle ages. I learned a lot from him. In particular the idea that even in languages of gentiles there is holiness. So that idea combined with the idea of the Ari Isaac Luria to say the words of verses forwards and backwards gave me the idea of using this method in Physics which in fact helped me get through my Physics courses at Polytechnic Institute of NYU. But I have not mentioned this on my blog because I did not want to distract from the fast learning. But both methods seem to be important. Certainly one can see that the Litvaks that walk in the path of the Gra get to great depth in Gemara by means of intense review. Yet without the fast learning type of approach of saying the words and going on that you see in the Conversations of Rav Nahman [76] one lacks a certain perspective in learning. 

[The general Litvak approach based on the Gra is to emphasize in depth learning for the morning hours and "bekiut" fast learning in the afternoon. But for some reason, I left the Litvak world and went more in the direction of Torah with Derech Eretz [work and Torah]. But, I can see the greatness of just siting and learning Torah all day-- for those that can manage to do so.] 

 

z7 music

z7 F minor mp3 file 

z7 F minor midi file

 Rav Nahman of Breslov mentions often in the LeM the problem with Torah scholars that are demons even though he does not refer to this problem in the same way all the time. For example in LeM vol I:61 he refers to the importance of not granting "semicha" [ordination] to people that are not really proper or prepared. So let's say there would be no such thing. What approach would be possible? Could people just go to any student of Ponovitch or the Mir to ask what the Torah says about such and such a question? I imagine that would  be the best approach.  At least to me this makes sense because in fact when I got to the Mir I was astounded at the high level of learning of even the first year students. My experience has been that almost any student of any of the great Litvak yeshivas tends to have a great grasp of Torah.

[Besides this we already know that "semicha" is  a fraud. Authentic semicha disappeared in the middle of the time of the amoraim.  That is why later amoraim are just known as "Rav" or just their first names. Apparently it continued somewhere into the Talmud period but the farther you go it gets less and less until it is accepted that at the end it simply no longer existed. [Semicha means a continuous granting of authority to teach Torah from Moses on Sinai  down to the middle of the Talmud period.] 

Another point to take into consideration is that Torah ought not be used as a means to make money. So why support that? Better give the same money to the great Litvak yeshivas that learn Torah for its own sake.

The Kant direction has tons of interpretations, but the best to my mind is the Kant-Fries school [see Kelley Ross.

 Kant is really a different sort of approach than Hegel. Hegel does deal a lot with Kant, but does not actually refute him in any points at all. So my thinking about philosophy is that it branches out into three separate directions. These might be reconciled in some way, but it is not that they are all the same. 

The Kant direction has tons of interpretations, but the best to my mind is the Kant-Fries school [see Kelley Ross.] The main point is the immediate non intuitive knowledge [faith] about the things in themselves. [Or the thing in itself in Schopenhauer's modification of Kant.] [You would need this immediate non intuitive knowledge to get to the dinge an sich, since neither reason alone or sense perception alone can do so.]

The Hegel aspect also has this sort of approach that we can know the dinge an sich things in themselves, but not some other faculty besides reason, but by reason itself. [He is not all that different from G.E. Moore in that respect.] Reason gets there because of a give and take process he calls the dialectic. That is in fact the way science progresses.[Reason and sense perception work together. See Huemer ]

Then there is the intuitionists-- G.E. Moore, Prichard, Huemer. I am not sure where to place them. That is in some way the analytic school, but somewhat different.

Gemara Shabat pg 63.One should learn even if he forgets and even though he does not know wat he is saying.לעלם ליגרס אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר

In Shar Yashuv [of Rav Friefeld] there was a tremendous emphasis on review and in depth learning. This was in some sense at the Mir also except at the Mir there was the afternoon sessions which was devoted to fast learning. I should admit however that at both places I was out of my depth. The only way I can explain the way they were learning would be if you would learn the Chidushei HaRambam of Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri.

But I felt the need to learn fast--to cover ground. So I developed this sort of style that every paragraph in the Gemara I would learn twice with Rashi and the Maharsha [plus what ever rishonim or achronim that were available.] That way I could satisfy myself that I was doing some review-- but not lingering overly long. [That was the way I went through a lot of the large tractates.]

[Some time after that I was in Uman and David Bronson came there, and we started learning. In his sort of learning I saw the same kind of depth I had seen in Shar Yashuv and the Mir. But after that I left Uman.] 

[Since This balanced approach between in depth learning and fast learning of the Mir seems best to me. I later applied this balanced approach to Physics and it seems to work for me.

[Later,  I began to learn even without understanding based on the Gemara Shabat pg 63.One should learn even if he forgets and even though he does not know wat he is saying.לעלם ליגרס אינש אע''ג דמשכח ואע''ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר The learning gets absorbed into ones subconscious even though he thinks he did not understand. The subconscious processes the raw data as he sleeps at night. The saying of the words is not for understanding but rather for the uptake of the data.

Kant changed from the transcendental deduction in the Critique A to a more inclusive sort in B.

 Kant changed from the transcendental deduction in the Critique A to a more inclusive sort in B. [in order to answer the critique of Schultz]. However, even the second version  suffers from the mind-body problem. The body receives the signals, and then the categories [of Aristotle, how, where, why, when, how much, etc.] unify the information. But what information? There still is no way we know that can combine the signals with the mind. Computer chips in a bathtub are not a computer. And even when you put them together who is the user? So you need immediate non intuitive knowledge to unify the sense perception with the mind. 

That is not new. That is the basic idea of the Kant/Fries/Nelson approach. However I would like to ask if this is so different from Hegel? Hegel wants to collapse the mind body problem all into the mind--the absolute Idea [what you might know more familiarly as the Logos].  But Hegel's concept of reason and the mind is not at all like Kant. [That is the source of the famous critique on his Smaller and Greater Logic.]

His logic does not suffer from the Humean, "Reason can only tell us something is wrong if it is self contradictory," [an unproven postulate, and one that seems wrong on the face of it as G.E. Moore and Prichard and Huemer noticed.]

Hegel's Reason and Fries's are the same thing. Some source of knowledge that is beyond reason and beyond sensory perception.

[I owe Kelley Ross gratitude for explaining the idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge in a way that I began to understand that it means some deeper source of knowledge that branches out into empirical or a priori knowledge or both together.] [The G.E. Moore approach and Huemer is that reason simply recognizes universals. It is not going into the particulars of how. And the how is the question of Kant. How do we know synthetic a priori (universals)?]  So Kelley Ross noted that Huemer could have benefited from the Friesian/Leonard Nelson approach.]

the signature of the Gra

The letter of excommunication  [cherem] that has the signature of the Gra is ignored. I am not sure why no one pays any heed to it. One of the reasons I think it was signed was because of the problem of worshipping dead people which the Gra thought does not represent Torah very well. [That is an understatement. It is plain idolatry and not Torah in the slightest sense. ] Another issue is the "everything is God" which is not what the Torah says or holds. The Torah is monotheism. That is God created the world; he is not the world.   

[I do not think that Rav Nahman came under the herem after I read the actual language and whom it was meant to include. However there is a odd tendency that when people get involved in Rav Nahman (which in itself is a great thing) that they go off into directions that are not good and highly destructive. It seems to open the door to leave the straight path of Torah.]  

 Moral philosophers in the West  hold that adult children have no more moral obligation to support their elderly parents than does any other person in the society, no matter how much sacrifice their parents made for them or what misery their parents are presently suffering. This is because children do not ask to be brought into the world or to be adopted. 

This is similar to  a case I am walking by a lake and there is a child drowning in the lake. So obviously I jump in and save her. Does she owe me any any obligation or gratitude? Why should she? After all she did not ask to be rescued.  It is  the exact same logic as the case of a child towards his or her parents. 

[That is not to say that there are no great philosophers today. On the top of my list is Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries School. A bit lower are Huemer, and Robert Hanna. Though perhaps a bit off the subject but related to the political aspect of philosophy I think the two greatest masterpieces of the 20th century were the Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom and The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom.] 

z6 music file

 z6 B minor

I would like to mention that Rav Israel Salanter's idea of learning Musar [Ethics] seems to me to be very important. His point was that a lot of the essentials of Torah are forgotten  because of over much religiosity or sometimes the opposite. While we know from Musar that the essential aspect of Torah is to have good character traits, this point is often ignored or forgotten. And what is good character is well defined in the basic set of Musar from the Middle Ages אורחות צדיקים, חובות הלבבות, שערי תשובה, מעלות המידות, ספר היראה המיוחס לרבינו תם. [ Ways of the Righteous, Obligations of the Hearts, Gates of Repentance, Greatness of Good Character.]  

[The books of the disciples of Rav Israel Salanter were for me very helpful in getting the idea since the books of the Middle Ages although great can be hard to get the idea.--since after all they are mediaeval.]  

[I might mention that I was aware of the basic idea of the Torah that the essential thing is "to be a mensch" (a decent human being). From my home and also before I got to the Mir in NY. Still one has to have musar to be able to define what good character is.]

וסוגיא בכורות דף נ''ו/ השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים

 

חשבתי על השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים. ואף על פי ששאלתי על כך עכשיו הצהיר לי להיות הגיוני. אז מאיפה אני מתחיל? תן לי קודם לומר את הנקודה של רב שך. אם נלמד כמו הרמב''ם את המשנה וסוגיה בכורות דף נ''ו באו לומר לנו יש ברירה. זה יהיה כל העניין של הרעיון שהאחים שמתחלקים ואז מצטרפים שוב אינם חייבים במעשר של בהמה. כלומר, הם נותרו חייבים אפילו כשהם מחולקים בגלל יש ברירה. קשה היה לי להבין למה אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם לא צריכים להיות פטורים אם אנחנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. עכשיו אני רואה את הטעם של רב שך .אנו יודעים שהאחים שמצטרפים מחדש הם פטורים. אבל כל העניין של המשנה הייתה לומר שרק כשהם מצטרפים שוב הם לא חייבים. אז המשנה הייתה צריכה לומר שהם [האחים המתחלקים] ממשיכים להיות חייבים עד שהם יצטרפו שוב. ואנחנו יכולים לראות מדוע אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם אינם מחויבים גם אם אנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. הסיבה לכך היא שהצטרפות חזקה יותר מ”יש ברירה”. יש ברירה רק אומר שכאשר הם מתחלקים זה לא כאילו הם קונים כי הם כבר היו מפוצלים בפוטנציאל. אבל זה לא הולך להצטרפות חדשה כי כל העניין של הפסוק שאומר לנו שאחים או שותפים שהצטרפו אינם חייבים. כלומר שני הפסוקים אומרים לנו חייבים רק בעלי חיים שנולדו לאחר שכבר קיימת שותפות. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

I might just mention for the sake of clarity that Rashi and the Raavad both hold that brothers that inherit are obligated in maasar behema and business partners are not. It is the Rambam that learns the subject differently because of his version in the gemara. 

 I was thinking about the question Rav Shach has on the Rambam in laws of Sheklim. And though i asked on it last week today it stated to make sense to me. So where do I start? Let me first say the point of Rav Shach. If we learn like the Rambam the mishna in bechorot 56 is coming to tell us there is choice. That would be the whole point of the idea that the brothers that divide and then rejoin are not obligated in the tithe of animals. That is that they remained obligated even while divided because of  "there is choice."  But then the simpler thing to do would have simply to say that brothers that divide are still obligated in maasar behema for sheep that were born while they were joined.

Before  it was hard for me to see why if they rejoin they should not be obligated any more if we hold "there is choice." Now I see the point of Rav Shach. In any case we know the brothers that rejoin are not obligated. But the whole point of the mishna was to say that only when they rejoin are they not obligated. So the mishna should have said they [brothers that divide] continue to be obligated until they rejoin. And we can see why if they rejoin they are not obligated  even if we hold there is choice. That is because the rejoining is stronger than there is choice. There is choice only says that when they divide that is not as if they are buyers because\ they were already in potential divided. But that does not go for a new rejoining because the whole point of the  verse that tells us that brothers or partners that joining are not obligated. that is the two verses tell us what comes into the partnership is not obligated. only animals what were born after there is already a partnership are obligated.

\\\

[The Raavad and Rashi learn that subject differently and to them these issues come out fine.]

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 I was thinking about the question רב שך has on the רמב''ם in laws of שקלים. And though I asked on it last week today it stated to make sense to me. So where do I start? Let me first say the point of  רב שך. If we learn like the רמב''ם the משנה וסוגיא in בכורות דף נ''ו is coming to tell us יש ברירה. That would be the whole point of the idea that the brothers that divide and then rejoin are not obligated in the tithe of animals. That is that they remained obligated even while divided because of  יש ברירה."  But then the simpler thing to do would have simply to say that brothers that divide are still obligated in מעשר בהמה for sheep that were born while they were joined. Before it was hard for me to see why if they rejoin they should not be פטורים if we hold יש ברירה." Now I see the point of  רב שך. In any case, we know the brothers that rejoin are פטורים. But the whole point of the משנה was to say that only when they rejoin are they not obligated. So the משנה should have said they [brothers מתחלקים] continue to be obligated until they rejoin. And we can see why if they rejoin they are not obligated  even if we hold יש ברירה. That is because the rejoining is stronger than יש ברירה. There is choice only says that when they divide that is not as if they are buyers because they were already in potential divided. But that does not go for a new rejoining because the whole point of the  verse that tells us that brothers or partners that joining are not obligated. That is the two verses tell us what comes into the partnership is not obligated. Only animals what were born after there is already a partnership are obligated. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

\\\

חשבתי על השאלה שיש לרב שך על הרמב''ם בהלכות שקלים. ואף על פי ששאלתי על כך עכשיו הצהיר לי להיות הגיוני. אז מאיפה אני מתחיל? תן לי קודם לומר את הנקודה של רב שך. אם נלמד כמו הרמב''ם המשנה וסוגיא בכורות דף נ''ו בא לומר לנו יש ברירה. זה יהיה כל העניין של הרעיון שהאחים שמתחלקים ואז מצטרפים שוב אינם חייבים במעשר של בהמות. כלומר, הם נותרו חייבים אפילו כשהם מפולגים בגלל יש ברירה. קשה היה לי להבין למה אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם לא צריכים להיות פטורים אם אנחנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. עכשיו אני רואה את הטעם של רב שך.אנו יודעים שהאחים שמצטרפים מחדש הם פטורים. אבל כל העניין של המשנה היה לומר שרק כשהם מצטרפים שוב הם לא חייבים. אז המשנה היה צריך לומר שהם [אחים מתחלקים] ממשיכים להיות חייבים עד שהם יצטרפו שוב. ואנחנו יכולים לראות מדוע אם הם יצטרפו שוב הם אינם מחויבים גם אם אנו מחזיקים יש ברירה. הסיבה לכך היא שהצטרפות חזקה יותר מ”יש ברירה”. יש ברירה רק אומר שכאשר הם מתחלקים זה לא כאילו הם קונים כי הם כבר היו מפוצלים בפוטנציאל. אבל זה לא הולך להצטרפות חדשה כי כל העניין של הפסוק שאומר לנו שאחים או שותפים שהצטרפו אינם חייבים. כלומר שני הפסוקים אומרים לנו חייבים רק בעלי חיים שנולדו לאחר שכבר קיימת שותפות. ועכשיו זו הצטרפות חדש

Faster than light travel

 I noted that some have suggest worm holes between black holes in the core of atoms. That was the first time time I had some indication that faster than light might be possible. But now I noticed that someone has noted a similar process https://physicsworld.com/a/spacecraft-in-a-warp-bubble-could-travel-faster-than-light-claims-physicist/

 Copernicus did not predict new effects. Even his calculations were less accurate than that of astronomers working on the Ptolemy model.  But he explained things better. Rather than keeping on adding new rings he was able to make simple sense of the solar system by postulating that the earth goes around the sun.No new rings were needed.

Newton did not predict new effects. He simply explained the same force of gravity we see here on Earth is also in the heavens. It made more sense to explain the Kepler laws rather that leaving them unexplained. But there were no new predictions.

String theory explains things that do not and can not work in quantum gravity. That it has not be developed enough to know what new predictions at present day scales that can be tested  is not a lack. And it is testable.  See this: https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-gravity-could-soon-be-tested-using-ultracold-atoms/ So string theory or other approaches to gravity can be tested. 

Philosophy has been in a rut for some time. Robert Hanna's approach is to place pretty much everything since Kant into the waste basket.  ["Forward to Kant" is his motto.] And judging by the astounding emptiness of academic philosophy, who can blame him? But I still can see a lot of value in the Kant-Fries School of thought that takes an approach based on Kant, but diverges from him in some ways. And this school is so much ignored that even in lists of philosophers you will not even find Fries or Leonard Nelson mentioned.

But my own interest is in understanding my own experience in the world and making sense of it, [not to understand philosophy]. And for that I found the basis of the Kant-Friesian approach to be helpful.

I should add that the Fries approach and also the Nelson approach also have kinks that need to be worked out. I found that the web site of Kelley Ross does this job the best.  [and this seems to be thanks to the efforts of Greta Hermann.]  [Dr Ross is the best of all philosophers in over view and scope. but there is still plenty to learn from Huemer and Hegel. And I can see how some might say there are deep contradictions between them, but I can not see that. Humer bases himself  on the Intuitionists that reason is a faulty,--which is true. But that does not  contradict the subtleties of Kant. And Hegel does not deal with the Mind Body problem at all-. He sees the Notion as being the synthesis of both. But he  does not explain how and that is the very problem for those that deal with it. Hegel is not interested in that at all. He simply sees empirical and a priori knowledge as two outer sides of some inner coin.]  I still must say that Hegel has some good points that seem to be missed by this school of thought, plus the Intuitionists like Michael Huemer also have some points. They all seem to me to be some aspect of a deeper world view that I can not put my finger on exactly. 

{I truly feel guilty that I can not see the great chasm between Hegel and Fries. To me the whole issue is this: the Friesian school is a post Kant  Platonism. (That is the doctrines of Plato, but taking into account the three critiques). Hegel is a post Kant Plotinus. {That is Neo Platonism taking Kant into account.}  

 One problem I have noticed in religious leaders is that of self deception. That is to say you can not accuse them of being hypocrites  since they sincerely believe that they are super geniuses super wise and in contact with the ultimate wisdom, when in fact they are mostly pretty stupid and obsessed with sex and power. And they very much desire the money of secular Jews-- as you can see by the fact that they are asking for it all the time.

They are people that have never accomplished anything and act and pretend as of the whole world depends on them. And resort to degrading anyone besides them who has accomplished great deeds.

You can see that I am not the first person to notice this. In fact, this theme is mentioned in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov when he refers to the Torah scholars that are demons in LeM vol I chapters 8, 12, 28. It is  a theme that occurs often in the LeM, but also is brought in the Gemara itself in the end of tractate Shabat. There the Gemara says says that most of the problems in the world come from Torah scholars that are evil.  [The whole quotation is this: "If you see a generation that troubles come upon it, go and check the judges of Israel; for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel.'']

 z2 D major

religious fanaticism and the worship of dead people. Clearly the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication for this very reason but the fact that he was ignored is what caused the entire religious world to fall and remain deeply imbedded in the worship of dead people.

 There is a point to what many people say about religious fanaticism. I.e. that it is insane. And that is a true point. And also well justified by observation. But the opposite extreme seems  also somewhat off. The way I think is best to deal with this issue is to find the good and throw out what is wrong. [One good way to see this issue is like Kelley Ross of the Kant Friesian School where religious belief comes under the category of immediate non intuitive knowledge. So where as id one find the path towards holiness that has the most energy and light, the problem is if one misses the target even by the slightest amount he or she falls into the Dark Side where the energy and power of evil is infinite. And even worse is the fact that these two opposite poles are often contained in the same person. (as people often have that characteristic of containing opposite in one body.)

[Another problem in the religious world is the worship of dead people. In Torah we find that there is a prohibition of worship of any other gods besides the One and only First Cause. The religious worship other gods but they get away with this because they pretend that what they are doing is not idolatry. They clothe their worship of dead people in Jewish religious clothing and that is supposed to make it OK.]

Clearly the Gra signed the famous letter of excommunication for this very reason but the fact that he was ignored is what caused the entire religious world to fall and remain deeply imbedded in the worship of dead people.

בכורות דף נ''ו ואבי עזרי של רב שך הלכות שקלים

 I have been puzzling about a certain issue in the אבי עזרי of רב שך in הלכות of שקלים. It is this in the רמב''ם there is this approach to מעשר בהמה. Sheep or cows come into the domain of יורשים it is is not obligated. That is where is disagrees with the ראב''ד. But in the domain, what is born the the domain of the inheritors is obligated.  The question רב שך has on this רמב''ם is based on the משנה that if the inheritors divide and then rejoin, they are not obligated in the tithe. רב שך asks would it not be more of a חידוש to say that the inheritors that   divide are מחויבים if the Mishna is coming to tell us יש ברירה. The lack of understanding on my part is this. The משנה certainly holds just dividing changes nothing. The brothers are still obligated in what was born while they were joined. It is the rejoining that makes them not obligated. Clearly רב שך here is understanding the רמב''ם that that משנה is coming to tell us יש ברירה. But one way or the other does not seem to say anything about if the brothers simply divide. On one hand I can see the point of רב שך. In the way of the רמב''ם, that משנה has to go according to the opinion יש ברירה. For if not [that is if the law would be אין ברירה], then when the brothers divide they would be considered as buyers who would not be obligated in the animal tithe. Still it is hard to say that even according to   אין ברירה that the obligation they already had of giving every tenth animal would disappear. What I mean. The normal way we understand that people that buyers are not obligated in the מעשר for animals is that there is a change in domain, from one person to another. But here animals that were born when the brothers were together are now owned by just one or the other. That is not really a change in domain..

It occurred to me later today to mention that my basic point is that there is not much difference with the brothers going into a new partnership of coming out of one when it comes to the issue of "breira". If אין ברירה [no choosing] then going into one is the same as coming out, and same is there is choosing. While Rav Shach's question revolves on the idea that there is a difference. Going into a new partnership he holds is clearly like they are buyers. But not coming out of one. But if we hold "there is choosing", it ought not to make a difference. Rav Shach is saying since there is choosing the mishna could have simply told us coming out of the partnership does not change anything and they are still obligated in maasar behama. [As the Mishna obviously hold that way anyway.] So why come onto the next case of rejoining? [It is doubtful to me why this should be different] Rav Shach holds that this is where the mishna tells us there is choosing and this new partnership is what makes them obligated.

בכורות נ''ו רמב''ם הלכות שקלים

תמהתי על נושא מסוים באבי עזרי של רב שך בהלכות של שקלים. זה ברמב''ם יש גישה זו למעשר בהמה. כבשים או פרות נכנסים לרשות של יורשים הם לא מחויבים. שם הוא לא מסכים עם הראב''ד. אך מה שנולד ברשות היורשים חייב. השאלה שיש לרב שך על רמב''ם זה מבוססת על הנושא שאם היורשים מתחלקים ואז מצטרפים שוב, הם אינם חייבים במעשר. רב שך שואל האם זה לא יהיה יותר חידוש לומר שיורשים שמתחלקים הם מחויבים אם המשנה באה לומר לנו יש ברירה. חוסר ההבנה מצדי הוא זה. המשנה בהחלט מחזיקה יש ברירה. האחים עדיין חייבים במה שנולד בזמן הצטרפותם. ההצטרפות  השנייה היא זו שגורמת להם לא להיות חייבים. ברור שרב שך כאן מבין את הרמב''ם שאותו משנה בא לומר לנו יש ברירה. אבל נראה שכך או אחרת זה לא אומר כלום אם האחים מתחלקים. מצד אחד אני יכול לראות את הטעם של רב שך. בדרך של הרמב''ם, אותו משנה צריכה ללכת על פי הדעה שיש ברירה. כי אם לא [כלומר אם החוק יהיה אין ברירה], אז כאשר האחים מתחלקים הם ייחשבו כקונים שלא יהיו חייבים במעשר בהמה. ובכל זאת קשה לומר שגם לפי אין ברירה שההתחייבות שכבר הייתה עליהם לתת כל חיה עשירית תיעלם. מה שאני מתכוון. הדרך הרגילה בה אנו מבינים שאנשים שקונים אינם חייבים במעשר בהמה היא שיש שינוי בתחום, מאדם אחד לאחר. אבל כאן בעלי חיים שנולדו כשהאחים היו ביחד הם עכשיו בבעלות זה או אחר בלבד. זה לא ממש שינוי בעלות.

I have been puzzling about a certain issue in the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach [in the only law in Laws of Shekalim that there is a chapter in the Avi Ezri]. It is this in the Rambam there is this approach to tithe of animals [every tenth animal must be given away]. It comes into the domain of inheritors it is is not obligated. [That is where is disagrees with the Raavad.] But in the domain --i.e. what is born the the domain of the inheritors is obligated [That is both to the Raavad and Rambam.] The question Rav Shach has on this Rambam is a different. The question is based on the fact that if the inheritors divide and then rejoin, they are not obligated in the tithe. Rav Shach asks would it not be more of a "chidush" [new idea] to say that the inheritors that   divide are obligated if the Mishna is coming to tell us יש ברירה [what is divided reveals what was already divided in potential in the past.].

The lack of understanding on my part is this. The mishna certainly holds just dividing changes nothing. The brothers are still obligated in what was born while they were joined. It is the rejoining that makes them not obligated. Clearly Rav Shach here is understanding the Rambam that that mishna is coming to tell us something about there is "braira"  יש ברירה or there is not braira [choosing]. But one way or the other does not seem to say anything about if the brothers simply divide. 

On one hand I can see the point of Rav Shach. In the way of the Rambam, that mishna has to go according to the opinion יש ברירה [there is choosing]. For if not [that is if the law would be אין ברירה], then when the brothers divide they would be considered as buyers who would not be obligated in the animal tithe. Still it is hard to say that even according to   אין ברירה that the obligation they already had of giving every tenth animal would disappear.

I think you can see what I mean. The normal way we understand that people that buyers are not obligated in the maasar for animals is that there is a change in domain--from one person to another. But here animals that were born when the brothers were together are now owned by just one or the other. That is not really a change in domain.

 The fact of my accepting way of learning of saying the words and going on [mentioned in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים ורב נחמן the Ways of the Righteous and Rav Nahman Conversations 76  ] does not mean I see no place for intense review and in depth learning. It is just that this sort of in depth type has never been clear to me how to go about it. One of the many ways I have tried is this. Once I get to a place in a book where things simply stop making any sense to me [let's say for example in Algebraic Topology] it is at that point that I figure I need to do review. So I simply start where I am already holding and go back page by page to the very beginning. That seems to work for some subjects. But Tosphot is more self contained. You do not need to know every other Tosphot in Shas in order to understand one. So in terms of that kind of learning I would take just one particular Tosphot or some chapter in the Avi Ezri or Rav Haim of Brisk, and just review that one chapter day after day. So it seems to me that in depth learning depends on the subject.

 z4 A minor

z4 midi file

z4 nwc