I had a period in Yeshiva in which I read every paragraph twice. This I think helped me a lot

That is I would take one paragraph of the Talmud and read it once straight through and then the Rashi and understand nothing. Then I would read the Soncino English translation and also understand nothing. Then I would read the paragraph in the Talmud once again and gain understand nothing. But then I would read the Rashi once again and then the whole thing became clear.

This reading the words twice approach helped me for all the years I was in Yeshiva from 18 until about 25.  The idea of review I saw in the Gra and I think it is good for certain kinds of learning, but not all. There were things that even saying them over  a few time s were simply way beyond my league and I found it better just to say the words and go on. Then I would hope the ideas would get into me by osmosis--which in fact often did happen.

The idea of a crisis of the Enlightenment is not the sole product of Allen Bloom. [I think the original person that noticed it was Max Weber.]
The problem of this crisis was the main subject of Allen Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind.

I think that book is  a major masterpiece and recommend it for everyone. In any case the basic idea was there were two opposing currents of the Enlightenment. And these two opposing currents came to collide in the USA in the lifetime of Allen Bloom. That is the idea of this book in a nutshell.
This same problem was faced by Max Weber.


One part of the Enlightenment was give everyone education (i.e. enlightenment). Teach them reason, and then Utopia will result. And make governments do this. The Enlightenment  was an attempt to take power from Kings and the Priest and give it to the intellectuals.
The other part of the Enlightenment was the intellectual revolt against  reason, a celebration of subjective will and intuition, and a neo-Romantic longing for spiritual wholesomeness.
So far I have said nothing new. Just read Allen Bloom and Max Weber.


The Middle Ages were in spirit was very different from everything that came before or after. It is a time that is almost impossible to understand. And yet one thing stands out from that time--the attempt to combine reason with spiritual wholeness.  This same attempts still continues today in Lithuanian yeshivas. We know learning Rishonim [Mediaeval authorities] has always been the bedrock of Lithuanian yeshivas. Recently this idea has gained in force by the example of some yeshivas that expressly commit to this approach and on purpose avoid Achronim (anyone after the Middle Ages). In some places you can see a similar approach  when then spend their efforts on Thomas Aquinas.  In any case Allen Bloom certainly noticed this because he mentioned in his book that some of his relatives who were observant Jews had as much and better understanding of life and the world just based on their reading the Old Testament and Talmud as others who read the New York Times. But Allen Bloom's answer was to tell people to learn the Republic of Plato and other great books. This seems to me to  lack the numinous, and holy aspect that makes something compelling as opposed to mere intellectual exercise.

The reason Allen Bloom did not think going back to the Middle Ages was a good idea was because of the very problems themselves that had produced the conditions  and problems which made the Enlightenment necessary.  What happens in practice is ad hoc justice, ad hoc adjudication. and widespread injustice. If laws are not equal for all, then they become very unequal. 

The model I have thought best is a kind of continuation of the Rambam approach. The Rambam thought learning Torah was a necessary prerequisite for learning Physics and Metaphysics. That is he saw learning (not knowing) Physics and Metaphysics as the fulfillment of the commandments to love and fear God. But that they don't accomplish this with the proper background of the Oral and Written Law. That is the approach that I take myself even though I have never seen anyone take Rambam approach  seriously. I simply decided not to wait until others wake up. [I am not claiming expertise in any of these fields. Rather it is just my claim that it is proper and important to spend time each day in each of these three areas.]

This longing for spiritual wholeness I think explains the Baal Teshuva movement, and the widespread revolt against reason in those circles and in fact the general seeking of spirituality we see since the 1960's. I certainly have seen my share of this in different cults.

cults and cult leaders

 I am certainly not the only one who has noticed the profusion of cults and cult leaders that are positively insane that are at least in name following him. Certainly everyone can see when anyone gets involved in Brelsov, they stop learning Torah for its own sake, and start following any one of the lunatic leaders. self proclaimed imitators of the real thing.

There is no good answer for this. There are areas of Torah that are important: that is, "What is it all about?" What is the meaning of it all?



Some people think that because someone was in fact a very great tzadik that therefore it is a great mitzvah to spread the word about him. But I feel it is not  praiseworthy to ignore the side effects.  It seems to me to display an enormous amount of irresponsibility to not care about the possible effects of such advice. Unconcern about the human consequences of a theory is not an attractive trait.  

My own approach I should mention. I think there are two aspects of Torah that are important--the "between man and his fellow man" (בין אדם לחבירו) part, and then the "between man and God" (בין אדם למקום) part.  The best example of the first that I know of is my parents. The later part is hard to say. I think there were a few tzadikim that represented different aspects of Torah best. The Gra for learning Torah  and general strictness in keeping the mizvot as they were given. 

. But all these aspects I think are important in order to narrow the gap between what I do and what I ought to do. That is to reach objective morality. 

q63  [q63 in midi format] [q63 in nwc format]
l8 A song for the God of Israel  l8 in midi [l8 nwc format ]


n1  [n1 in midi]  n1 in nwc format

orchestra [ orchestra in midi]    [orchestra in nwc format]

mathematics   [mathematics in midi format] mathematics nwc format

Exodus 4  [Exodus 4 in midi]   [exodus4 in nwc format]

Bohr's concept of Quantum Mechanics and Kant

I wrote to  Dr Ross 

Dear Dr. Ross, your ideas about the connection between Kant and the Bohr concept of  Quantum Mechanics were finally noticed by the academic world. The article in the Stanford Encyclopedia states this connection explicitly.

Sincerely, Avraham Rosenblum

Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

A number of people and sources see similarities between Kant and Bohr.  However, that depends.  The Stanford page seems to assert that Bohr is a metaphysical realist, but that isn't always what he sounds like.  If he is actually a non-realist, which is often what he does sound like, then that would not be Positivism, which makes no metaphysical judgments, but it also would not be Kant, who posits "empirical realism."  Also, the Stanford page says that Bohr somehow agrees with Kant that things-in-themselves "can't be conceived of in causal terms."  This is quite false.  Kant would say that causality applies both to phenomena and things-in-themselves, but we don't know how it applies to things-in-themselves -- although it may allow for freedom.  Also, the idea that quantum mechanics violates causality at all is questionable.  With populations, quantum mechanics is as deterministic as anything.  Schrodinger's Equation is deterministic.  So the only issue is whether the random factor that enters when we consider individuals violates causality.  Or perhaps in quantum events, like the decay of nuclei, we don't detect an efficient cause.  But a lot of this depends on what we mean by causality.  Aristotle meant a lot more than what we do now.  I discuss some confusions about causality in relation to the movie Knowing -- http://www.friesian.com/why.htm#note-2a.

Best wishes,
Kelley Ross



My note: empirical means  things that are immanent in experience (not transcendent). Realism is these things don't depend on us for their existence. 

What Dr Ross is saying here is QM does not violate locality. And that Bell's Theorem has nothing to do with locality at all. It does say the world is dependent on how we observe it just like Kant says. That is there is a subjective and objective element in the representation. The world is not solely objective. [A good way of understanding this is how Schopenhauer puts it- the representation is  half from the subject and half from the object.]


What we call non-locality is you have  an atom that disappears  here it has to appear somewhere else but it could appear far away. Locality means it cant just disappear. Causes an effects are local.

Dr Ross is in between the lines answering the objections of some people on Kant. 

I am bringing here a question on the Rambam. But before I can I have to go through the subject.



Introduction. There are 43 kinds of sin that one must bring a sin offering for. [i.e. a female goat or sheep.] A sin offering can only be brought for accidental sin. So here we have a case where there was a piece of forbidden fat cooking the stove. John walks in and eats it. The Peter walks in a minute later and asks where is the piece of forbidden fat I left on the stove? John has to bring a sin offering.
[For the general public let me mention of the 43 a lot concern sexual relationships between family members and the Temple. Besides that there are few others likely idolatry, and Shabat.]


If one eats a piece of forbidden fat חלב, he brings a sin offering [a female goat or sheep]. If he ate a piece and then knew that it was forbidden, and then ate another piece and then knew that was forbidden, he has to bring a one sin offering on each piece.
Not only that but if there was two knowings. That he ate a כזית חלב and then ate another כזית חלב and then he knew about the first piece and then he knew about the second piece he brings two sacrifices.
That is you don't need the knowledge to be in between the two acts of eating.


From Tractate Shabat page 71Rambam 6:9. Laws of Accidental Sins.
That is to say the Rambam decided like Rabbi Yochanan that ידיעות מחלקות not like reish lakish that only bringing the sacrifice is מחלק
If he ate two pieces  in one span of forgetfulness and then knew about the first piece. Then in the same span of forgetting he ate a third piece, when he brings a sin offering for the first piece, he is absolved for the sin for the second piece. Rambam שגגות 6:11.

The Beit Joseph brings in the name of the Ri bei Rav an answer that is flimsy. And the Kiryat Sefer says another answer which is worse. Both answer are contradicted directly in the Rambam himself chapter 8:8

In 8:8 the Rambam brings the exact same law of Rabbi Yochanan that he says in 6:9 except that it is in terms of the guilt offering. And there he says אכל חמשה זיתי חלב. This directly contradicts what the Beit Yoseph said that the difference between 6:9 and 6:11 is in the first it   אכל כזית חלב וכזית חלב בהעלם אחת. There was this attempt to say ate and ate is two different acts so they count separately while in 6:11 it says he ate שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחת he ate two pieces in one span and that means in one act of eating and so they count together. This is  contradicted in 8:8 where he ate five pieces together and still they count separately.




Rav Shach offers a third answer that makes lot of sense to me even though there still seems to be some question that remains about it.



What Elazar Menachem Shach suggests is based on two premises. 1. knowledge causes a sin offering. 2. one span of forgetfulness is one sin. Thus he ate the first two pieces in one state of forgetfulness. And he knew about the first piece. So he brings a sin offering for the first piece. but since the second piece was eaten in the same span of forgetfulness the sin offering takes care of both pieces.  But what about if he only remembered that the second piece was forbidden? It certainly makes sense according to Rav Shach to say that everything would be forgiven and in fact that is exactly what the Rambam says.

What is hard to understand here is this in the last part of this halacha the Rambam says if  he knows about the middle piece and then brings a sacrifice then both the first and last are taken care of and when he knows about the first or the last he does not need to bring any further sin offering.
Here is the question I wanted to bring in the name of my learning partner. "What is dividing the pieces?" That is in the last case he ate a piece and another piece in one span. then he ate a third piece and still does not know. Then he knows about the second. Therefore it is all one span. There is nothing to divide them so obviously there is only one sacrifice.

Now I think Rav Shach does answer this in some way. I think he is saying that the Rambam intends the simple case but also if there was some kind of knowledge in between. But if so then it would be two separate acts and two separate sin offerings. Just think about it. He ate the first and second piece and if someone would tell him abut either then we would have knowledge that would separate completely. So it cant be that he knows anything. Then he ate a third piece. So it was all one span!.
I would like to suggest what kind of answer might help us. It is the fact that is it does not matter if the knowledge was in between the eating. It only matters what he knows. If he eats one piece and then another and then knows about the first is this one span or not? In 6:9 it seems not. Only the knowledge would divide.  I still don't know how this would help us but I suggest that we think along these lines.
If anyone has an idea here I would welcome it.

________________________________________________________________________________

I am bringing here a question on the רמב''ם. But before I can I have to go through the subject.



Introduction. There are 43 kinds of sin that one must bring a חטאת for. i.e. a female goat or sheep. A חטאת can only be brought for שוגג. So here we have a case where there was a כזית חלב cooking the stove. ראובן walks in and eats it. Then שמעון walks in a minute later and asks where is the כזית חלב   I left on the stove? ראובן has to bring a sin offering.


If one eats a piece of  חלב, he brings a חטאת a female goat or sheep. If he ate a כזית and then knew that it was forbidden, and then ate another כזית and then knew that was forbidden, he has to bring  one חטאת on each piece.
Not only that but if there was two ידיעות. I mean he ate a כזית חלב and then ate another כזית חלב and then he knew about the first כזית and then he knew about the second כזית, he brings two חטאות.
That is you don't need the ידיעות to be in between the two acts of eating.


From שבת דף ע''א Also  'רמב''ם הלכות שגגות פרק  ו': הלכה ט .
That is to say the רמב''ם decided like רבי יוחנן that ידיעות מחלקות not like ריש לקיש that only bringing the sacrifice is מחלק
If he ate two כזיתים  in one העלמה and then knew about the first כזית. Then in the same span of forgetting he ate a third כזית, when he brings a חטאת for the first piece, he is absolved for the sin for the second כזית. This is from  רמב''ם שגגות 6:11.

The בית יוסף brings in the name of the ר''י בי רב an answer that is flimsy. And the קרית ספר says another answer which is worse. Both answer are contradicted directly in the רמב''ם himself chapter 8:8

In 8:8 the רמב''ם brings the exact same law of רבי יוחנן that he says in 6:9 except that it is in terms of the guilt offering. And there he says אכל חמשה זיתי חלב. This directly contradicts what the בית יוסף בשם הר''י בי רב  said that the difference between 6:9 and 6:11 is in the first it   אכל כזית חלב וכזית חלב בהעלם אחת. There was this attempt to say אכל כזית חלב וכזית חלב is two different acts so they count separately while in 6:11 it says he ate שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחת he ate two pieces in one העלמה and that means in one act of eating and so they count together. This is  contradicted in 8:8 where he ate five pieces together and still they count separately. אכל חמישה כזיתים בהעלם אחת. According to the Beit Joseph that language would have to mean they are counted as one and yet there in 8:8 the law is they are counted separately.




רב שך offers a third answer that makes lot of sense to me.



What רב אלעזר מנחם שך suggests is based on two premises. 1. ידיעה גורמת חיוב חטאת. 2. Also העלם אחת היא חטא אחד. Thus he ate the first כזיתי חלב in one state of העלמה. And he knew about the first כזית. So he brings a חטאת for the first כזית. But since the second כזית was eaten in the same span of forgetfulness the חטאת takes care of both כזיתים.  But what about if he only remembered that the second כזית was forbidden? It certainly makes sense according to רב שך to say that everything would be forgiven and in fact that is exactly what the רמב''ם says.

What is hard to understand here is this in the last part of this הלכה the רמב''ם says if  he knows about the middle piece and then brings a חטאת then both the first and last are taken care of and when he knows about the first or the last he does not need to bring any further חטאת.
Here is the question I wanted to bring in the name of my learning partner. "What is dividing the pieces?" I mean in the last case he ate a piece and another piece in one span. then he ate a third piece and still does not know. Then he knows about the second. Therefore it is all one span. There is nothing to divide them so obviously there is only one חטאת.

Now I think רב שך does answer this in some way. I think he is saying that the רמב''ם intends the simple case but also if there was some kind of knowledge in between. But if so then it would be two separate acts and two separate חטאות. Just think about it. He ate the first and second כזית and if someone would tell him abut either then we would have knowledge that would separate completely. So it can't be that he knows anything. Then he ate a third כזית. So it was all one span!.
I would like to suggest what kind of answer might help us. It is the fact that is it does not matter if the knowledge was in between the eating. It only matters what he knows. If he eats one כזית and then another and then knows about the first is this one span or not? In 6:9 it seems not. Only the knowledge would divide.  I still don't know how this would help us but I suggest that we think along these lines.
If anyone has an idea here I would welcome it.


______________________________________________________________________________


אני מביא כאן שאלה על רמב''ם. אבל לפני כן אני חייב לעבור את הנושא. מבוא. יש ארבעים ושלשה סוגים של חטא שצריך להביא עליהם חטאת . כלומר  עז נקבה או כבשה. חטאת ניתן להביא רק לשוגג. אז הנה יש לנו מקרה שבו הייתה כזית חלב על  התנור. ראובן נכנס ואוכל אותו. אז שמעון נכנס לאחר מכן ושואל איפה הוא כזית החלב ששמתי בתנור? ראובן צריך להביא חטאת. אם אוכל חתיכת החלב, הוא מביא חטאת. אם הוא אכל כזית ולאחר מכן ידע שאסור, ואז אכל כזית נוספת ולאחר מכן ידע שהיה אסור, שיש לו להביא אחד חטאת על כל חתיכה. לא רק זה, אלא אם היו שתי ידיעות, שהוא אכל כזית חלב, ולאחר מכן אכל עוד כזית חלב, ואז הוא ידע על כזית הראשונה ואז הוא ידע על כזית השנייה, הוא מביא שתי חטאות.  אתה לא צריך שיהיו הידיעות בין שני מעשים של אכילה. שבת דף ע''א וכן ברמב''ם הלכות שגגות פרק ו': הלכה ט'. כלומר הרמב''ם החליט כמו רבי יוחנן שידיעות מחלקות, לא כמו ריש לקיש  שהקרבת הקורבן הוא מחלקת.

אם הוא אכל שני כזיתים כאחד בהעלמה ולאחר מכן ידע על כזית הראשונה. לאחר מכן, באותו פרק הזמן של שיכחת השניה אכל כזית שלישית, כשהוא מביא חטאת לחתיכה הראשונה, הוא פוטר את החטא  שלכזית השנייה. זה משגגות ברמב''ם פרק ו' הלכה י''א. הבית יוסף מביא בשם הר''י בי רב תשובה. והקרית ספר, אומר תשובה אחרת. שתי התשובות נסתרות בפרק ח' הלכה ח'  ברמב''ם.  הרמב''ם מביא בדיוק את אותו החוק של רבי יוחנן שהוא אומר ב פרק ו' הלכה ט' חוץ מזה שזה במונחים של קרבן אשם. ושם הוא אומר אכל חמשת זיתי חלב. זה ישירות סותר את מה שהבית יוסף מביא בשם הר''י בי רב שאמר שההבדל בין  פרק ו' הלכה ט' ופרק ו' הלכה י''א שבהתחלה זה אכל כזית חלב וכזית חלב בהעלם אחת. היה הניסיון הזה לומר ''אכל כזית חלב וכזית חלב הוא שני מעשים שונים ולכן הם נחשבים בנפרד ואילו בפרק ו' הלכה י''א הוא אומר שהוא אכל שתי זיתי חלב בהעלם אחת (היינו שהוא אכל שתי חתיכות כאחד בהעלמה אחת) ור''י בי רב  אמר שהכוונה בפעולת אכילה אחת וכך הן ספורות יחד. זה נסתר בפרק ח' הלכה ח' שבו הוא אכל חמש חתיכות יחד ועדיין הן ספורות בנפרד. "אכל חמש כזיתים בהעלם אחת." לדברי הבית יוסף השפה מכוון שהן נספרות כאחד, ובכל זאת יש בפרק ח' הלכה ח' החוק שהן נספרות בנפרד. רב אלעזר מנחם שך מציע תשובה שלישית. מה שרב שך מציע מבוסס על שתי הנחות. 1. הידיעה גורמת חיוב חטאת. 2. כמו כן העלמה אחת היא חטא אחד. כך הוא אכל כשתי זיתי חלב  בהעלמה אחת. והוא ידע על כזית הראשונה. אז הדין שהוא מביא חטאת על כזית הראשונה. אבל מאחר שכזית השנייה נאכלה באותו פרק זמן של שיכחה החטאת מכפרת  על שתי הכזיתים.
בחלק האחרון של זו ההלכה הרמב''ם אומר אם הוא יודע על חתיכה האמצעי ולאחר מכן מביא חטאת, אז שתיהם, החתיכה הראשונה והחתיכה האחרונה מתכפרות וכאשר הוא יודע על הראשונה או האחרונה הוא לא צריך להביא עוד חטאת. הנה השאלה שאני רוצה להביא בשמו של השותף הלמידה שלי. "מה היא חלוקת החתיכות?" אני מתכוון במקרה האחרון שהוא אכל חתיכה וחתיכה בהעלמה אחת . ואז הוא אכל חתיכה שלישית ועדיין לא יודע. ואז הוא יודע על השנייה. לכן זה כל העלמה אחת. אין שום דבר לחלק אותן ולכן  ברור שיש רק חטאת אחת. עכשיו אני חושב רב שך  ענה על זה בדרך כלשהי. אני חושב שהוא אומר שרמב''ם מתכוון מקרה הפשוט, אבל גם אם היה איזשהו ידע שביניהם. אבל אם כן אז זה יהיה שני מעשים נפרדים ושתי חטאות נפרדות. רק תחשוב על זה. הוא אכל כזית הראשונה ושנייה, ואם מישהו היה אומר לו שהשנייה הייתה חלב,  גם אז יהיה לו ידע שיפריד לחלוטין. אז זה לא יכול להיות שהוא לא יודע שום דבר. ואז הוא אכל כזית שלישית. אז זה היתה שיכחה אחת ! אני רוצה להציע איזה סוג של תשובה שעשוי לעזור לנו. זה הוא העובדה שזה לא משנה אם הידע היה בין האכילה. זה רק משנה מה שהוא יודע. אם הוא אוכל כזית אחד, ואז עוד אחד, ואז יודע על הראשון היא העלמה אחת  או לא? בפרק ו' הלכה ט'  נראה שלא. רק הידע יחלק. אני עדיין לא יודע איך זה יעזור לנו, אבל אני מציע שאנחנו חושבים לאורך קווים אלה. אם למישהו יש רעיון כאן הייתי מברך אותו.

My basic feeling is it is possible to learn and keep Torah without being a fanatic.
But it is hard. The reason is that for every positive value there is an equal an opposite value. There is Music and anti Music. Literature and anti literature. Natural Science and pseudo science. And each anti-value tries to present itself as legitimate. So without experience and knowledge people can easily fall into cults. What makes the religious issue hard is that when one falls from holiness, he falls into unholiness, that really  bad stuff. That is not the same as falling from Rembrandt or Leonardo Da Vinci into pseudo art.

So we see why Lithuanian yeshivas are so rigid in keeping out cults and cult members. They realize how easy it is for positive value to be corrupted and fall into negative value.

Here is an idea from Steven Dutch which relates to this

The Fundamental Fallacy of Modern Philosophy might be defined as the idea that it makes sense to study structure divorced from content. This is the idea that has given us businessmen who think they can "manage" without knowing anything about what they manage, critics who claim that only the technical excellence of a work of art matters, not its content, and sociologists of science like the one with whom I corresponded who think you can study the Velikovsky affair without regard to the scientific validity of Velikovsky's ideas.


What Steven Dutch is pointing out is that content matters. Maybe external forms do also but the major issue is content, in any field. You may have heard complaints about religious fanaticism but tat totally ignores the question of what people are fanatic about. It places a Catholic nun on the same moral plane as an Islamic suicide bomber. Content matters.

And this leads to the interesting question about  a true tzadik and yet  numerous cults being formed that supposedly follow his teachings. This fact is what  causes Lithuanian yeshivas to have doubts about how to deal with this. They would like to have his books in the yeshiva because of their high value but are nervous about what they can lead to.
The higher and better something is--when it falls it falls to a more negative value.


The best approach I think is that of balance between different areas of value. And also to take one specific area to strive for excellence.  This was how my parents raised me and it makes a lot of sense to me that this is the best approach.