Schelling

I had a high school teacher who hated it when I compared two presidents. He wrote to me the most virulent criticism I had ever heard up until that day. [He still gave me a good grade for some reason I did not know.] Later my rosh yeshiva launched a much more public crusade against me. But not for the same kind of thing. In any case,, ever since then, I have been wary of comparing thinkers. But I can't help it sometimes. But on the same hand, I realize I might just be looking at something on a superficial level. So take this as suggestion for research, not as a conclusion.
I would like to compare Schelling with Plotinus, and also suggest that he perhaps consciously was redefining Plotinius to fit into a kind of Kantian system. [That is Reason is no longer inside of us. It is rather something outside of us that we sometimes have access to. And there is a ground of Reason. I can't help but think he must have been inspired by Plotinus to come up with his modification of Kant.]

 To Schelling  reason is not  totalizing and self-grounding, but an opening to that which cannot be thought.

And from this- we can understand the Rambam's idea of learning Physics and Meta-Physics as an opening to what comes beyond that. This is a theme which is brought up in books of Musar from the Middle Ages, like the חובות לבבות, מעלות המידות 

j16 a flat major  j16 midi   j16 nwc

 

There is sometimes you intellectually realize something is wrong with a group you are involved with but you don't have the where with all to leave. Or it is not all that clear in the first place. What can bridge between intellectual awareness and action?

I think a kind of shock treatment is needed. A kind of wake up call. People are for good reason reluctant to leave something they got benefit out of,-  even when they start to see problems.

[A good hint is when most people that know the subject fairly think the group you are involved with is a fridge nut house group. Maybe then it is time to pack your bags.]


My suggestion is: Even when you know there is a gap between what you know is right and your actions- to still keep on learning Torah and Musar, so that when the wake up call comes, you have the intellectual ability to leave something that you knew all along was not good, and you knew you were just making excuses for it.


So I again am making an argument for learning Torah. This is something I got from Reb Shmuel Berenbaum at the Mir in N.Y. When he was asked about almost any human problems, from all kinds of people, his answer was always to "learn Torah." He felt the Torah had the ability to guide people towards the truth that they needed in their own lives. Just for clarity: The idea was to learn the Old Testament and the two Talmuds. I mean to say his definition of "Torah" was very much like the Rambam's statement "Just like there is no תוספת nor גירעון in the Written Torah, so is there no תוספת nor גירעון in the Oral Law."[You can not add to the Tenach, so you can't add to the traditional books of Oral Law. People can write books to explain the Oral Law, but they do not constitute the Oral Law in themselves. So the only real, authentic Oral Law is the books we received from the Talmud Period.  Everything else is commentary which can be wrong.

There might be other examples of groups that have things that are wrong. However an example is the idea of מסית ומדיח that is one who entices others to do idolatry. That is you might have  a group which has lots of good advice for you and has helped you and also the leader has done great miracles, but as part of the group there is worship of the leader. We know from the Torah that idolatry is forbidden so when worship of the leader is an essential element of the group then trying to bring others into it has a category of מסית ומדיח and we find the Dark Side often gives people miracles in order to give them the ability to entice others.  This is common and also common knowledge.

The fact that lots of people believe in a cult does not provide evidence for truth value. "Some markets work well, but the market for ideas doesn't.  Why not?  Because ideas have massive externalities.  The market for pollution works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your pollution. The market for ideas, similarly, works poorly because strangers bear almost all the cost of your irrationality.  The people who pay the price for the lies are not those who  control the movement.
 Truth doesn't largely win out in a well-functioning market for ideas, because people primarily seek not truth, but comfort and entertainment.  Look at the market for religion.  No matter what your religious views, it's hard to claim truth prevails, because even the generously-defined market leader has less than half the market.  The same goes for political ideas." Brian Caplan

Songs for the Glory of God the Creator [music for orchestra]

l34 [l34 midi format]

 l35 [l35 midi format]

 l9 [l9 midi format]

 l8 [l8 midi]

 l2  [l2 midi]

 l1 [l1 in midi]

 l26 [l26 in midi]

  n51  [n51 in midi]

 n52  [n52 in midi]

 n53 n53 in midi

 l54 in midi

 l89 [l89 midi]
j16 a flat major [j16 in midi] That nice sound in the middle is a piano with a flute.


q100   [q100 in midi] This I am sure needs editing but  have no idea how and a lot of it was written under duress. I beaten in the Mikveh by some deranged person. In an upset mood it is hard to concentrate.
q100 version 2   [q100 version 2 in midi] This I think is a little better. One of the problems with the first version was no modulation in the beginning and thus no way to recapitulate. So this version corrects that flaw I hope half decently. [I think after that upsetting incident I was not thinking that modulation was a good idea. Now after thinking about it it seems it probably is.]


exodus4  [exodus 4 in midi]

Bava Metzia 98a

Ideas in Bava Metzia new edition  [Also see: Ideas in Shas]
(I  do not claim my book here is great. Any of my teachers could have written books on all of Shas a million times better. Reb Shmuel Berenbaum  could give a Shiur Klali on the spot on any place in Shas--and he did so any time he was asked to. People taped his classes towards th end of his life but as far as I know they did not write things down. And Naphtali Yeager also is easily as great. I am just putting out for the public my own meager ideas.  If you want a really great book on Gemara gets Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. Nowadays the Mirrer in NY has Rav Nelkenbaum who also is an amazing Talmid Chacham.]



I don't have access to any גמרא right now, but from what I remember רבי חייא בר אבא holds is we do not say  עירוב פרשיות and from what I recall in בבא קמא ק''ז that means he holds we need כפירה along with טענת נאנס and רבי חייא בר יוסף says we don't need כפירה

 רב חייא בר אבא מחזיק בשיטה שלא אומרים עירוב פרשיות  בבבא קמא ק''ז. זה אומר שהוא מחזיק שצריכים כפירה יחד עם טענת נאנס. ורב חייא בר יוסף אומר שאנחנו לא צריכים כפירה עם טענת אונס כדי שתהיה שבועה



Or I could perhaps (God willing) write a new paragraph why Rashi can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in Bava Kama was explaining the opinion of Rabbi Hiya Bar Joseph and the Gemara in Shavout  is going like the other opinion.
The reason is this: That would make things worse to Rashi.

Rava says if there is such a thing as a "migo" (he could have said) then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If Rashi would try to say this is like Rabbi Chiya Bar Aba that would not help anything, because to R. Chiya Bar Aba there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as Tosphot points out either the case of נאנס  was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder the question on Rashi is that according to Rabbi Chiya bar Joseph Rashi holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So Rava's question would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is in fact נשבע

However I did have another point in that paragraph that Rashi can't answer that anyway because Rava in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.



______________________________________________________________________________




Or I could perhaps God willing write a new paragraph why רש''י can not answer what I was suggesting here that he in בבא קמא was explaining the opinion of רב חייא בר יוסף and the גמרא in שבועות  is going like the other opinion של רב חייא בר אבא
The reason is this: That would make things worse to רש''י.

 רבא says if there is such a thing as a מיגו he could have said then there could never be שבועת השומרים Because the שומר can always say לא היו דברים מעולם. If רש''י would try to say this is like רב חייא בר אבא that would not help anything, because to רב חייא בר אבא there is never an oath without לא היו דברים מעולם. So as תוספות points out either the case of נאנס  was with כפירה already so he is in fact saying already on one animal לא היו דברים מעולם along with הודאה or else there was no animal of כפירה and then there never would have been an oath in the first place.
Just for a reminder, the question on רש''י is that according to רב חייא בר יוסף it is the case that רש''י holds there is an oath for נאנס but also for כפירה. So the  question of רבא would not have made any sense. טענת לא היו דברים מעולם is  נשבע

However that רש''י can't answer that anyway because רבא in fact holds from עירוב פרשיות in Sanhedrin.

 למה רש ''י לא יכול לענות  כאן שהוא בבבא קמא הסביר את דעתו של רב חייא בר יוסף ואת גמרא בשבועות הולכת כמו חוות דעת אחרת של רב חייא בר אבא הסיבה לכך היא זו: זה היה עושה את הדברים גרועים לרש''י.  רבא אומר אם יש דבר כזה, מיגו (שהיה יכול לומר), אז יש לא יכול להיות שבועת השומרים מכיוון ששומר תמיד יכול לומר "לא היו דברים מעולם". אם רש''י ינסה להגיד את זה הוא כמו רב חייא בר אבא, זה לא יעזור שום דבר, כי  לרב חייא בר אבא אף פעם אין שבועה ללא "לא היו דברים מעולם." אז כמו תוספות מציינות גם במקרה של "נאנס" הייתה גם בהמה של הכפירה וגם אחת של  הודאה.  ואם שלא היה חיה של כפירה, לא היה שבועה  מלכתחילה. רק תזכורת, השאלה על רש''י  שלפי רש''י רב חייא בר יוסף   מחזיק יש שבועה עבור נאנס אלא גם כפירה. אז לפי זה השאלה של רבא לא הייתה  היגיונית. טענה לא היה דברים מעולם הוא כן נשבע. ועוד סיבה כי רש''י לא יכול לענות את זה בכל מקרה, כי רבא למעשה מחזיק בשיטת עירוב פרשיות בסנהדרין ב' ע''ב. הגם ששם הפירוש של זה קצת שונה.

I will marry only a bachur who has learned in a Lithuanian Yeshiva

When I first got to yeshiva in Far Rockaway I discovered the magic method of review.

I was in a kind of dilemma because I wanted to make progress and the yeshiva was spending about a week of more on each page of Gemara. And I wanted to go faster. But going too fast left me without understanding at all. So I discovered this method of one review per paragraph.

This probably worked because of the unique kind of learning that I was doing. The Soncino Talmud had a great translation that was divided into paragraphs. So I could take the Gemara with Rashi and say over the equivalent of one paragraph. Then I would say word for word the English Translation of Soncino. And all that time I would have not understood anything. Then I would review the Gemara again in its original Aramaic and it would become clear on this second reading.

This combines two things that you have in the Gemara. One is the idea of גרסה (Girsa) that is just saying the words and gong on. The other is the importance of review. The tension between these two ideas gave me the impetus to do this middle ground method.  

What this means in terms of hard kinds of learning like Field Theory is to do the same kind of thing. Say each paragraph twice and go on.

[It is not as if I discovered all this on my own. Rabbi Freifeld and his son were always talking about the importance of "Review, Review, Review, ..." A book of Musar called אורחות צדיקים  talked about going fast and also review. [I was given that book by Simcha Wassermann when I used to hang out in his yeshiva in Los Angeles. He was the one to advice me to go to Shar Yashuv. He was by the way the son of Elchanan Wassermann the author of the Kovetz Shiurim] So it was the tension between these two opposites that caused me to come up with this middle approach. [Read the paragraph twice  and go on.] (Schelling held all progressions in human history happens in this way.)

I should mention that this method was disapproved of in both yeshivas. It was just my private way of trying to get somewhere in Gemara. Obviously Reb Naphtali Yeager [the Rosh Yeshiva in Far Rockaway] was  into learning in depth, and the deeper the better. A week on one page of Gemara was already considered way too fast. And later at the Mir in NY,  people were  involved in just preparing for the Rosh yeshiva's class at 12:15. This type of learning that I was doing just was not done. All I am saying is this: for guy like me that was struggling to catch up to everyone else, this method helped me. Clearly no one needed it in the Mir except for me. They were already light-years ahead of me.

And at the Mir in the afternoon they were already going faster than me also because the afternoon was meant for faster learning. That meant there to say over the basic Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot and get the basic idea and go on. [If I had a learning situation I would do this also. But I am kind of in exile.]

q96 f major