The main task in life is to find the right principles to hold onto, the right subjects to learn, the right books to read, the right institutions to support.

The Obligations of the Heart {חובות לבבות} holds there can be individual obligations that are not required of everyone. So the above list can be divided into personal obligations and obligations that are upon all.


My own search has resulted in some conclusions and some areas remain ambiguous.
Right principles:  Speak the truth no matter what you think the consequence may be. This provides an אור מקיף Surrounding light or surrounding force field that evil can not penetrate. Obviously being careful about Lashon Hara is important but to me it is unclear when it is required to warn others.
Right subjects: The Oral and Written Law (Gemara, Tosphot and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri), Math Physics, Music.
Institutions is a hard one.  I am very impressed with the Mir in NY and the other great Litvak Yeshivas in NY and Ponoviz in Bnei Brak.

[Though the Rambam emphasized the Metaphysics of Aristotle, I just can not see why. Though I have great interest in the subject, I can not see much that comes out of it. From what I can tell the best thing in Metaphysics is Leonard Nelson's continuation of Kant which in Europe is called the Critical school and in the USA it is called the Kant-Friesian School. The reason this stream of thought gets no attention in academia, I think is that they are a little over the top when it comes to criticizing Hegel or Heidegger. תפסת מרובה לא תפסת they grab too much. That is: they claim Hegel has nothing to say; and that simply is not the case. They ought to satisfy themselves  that they have an important continuation of Kant's thought that answers many of the problems and also makes considerable progress.


The Ran of Breslov also emphasized "תיקון הברית" sexual purity and it seems to me  he was quite right about that. He also recommended what he called the תיקון הכללי. That is if one has spilled seed in vain to say that same day these ten psalms in order without interruption 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.  (and to intend the Divine name אל אלהים in full which is אלף למד אלף למד הי יוד מם)

My feeling about marriage.-- good genes and DNA

My feeling about marriage.

And a lot depends on good genes and DNA. I mean to say that perhaps some aspects of her traits might be hard --but DNA is stronger than picked up  traits. So if her DNA is good then you might overlook attitudes picked up from her environment.

This was obvious to me when I was very young. The issue might be race. After all, some races have a predominance of criminal DNA. It might have to do with faith. But in elementary school and high school, I realized that determining good genes from bad genes is not simple. There are not a lot of obvious signs.
This is why in Anglo Saxon countries an emphasis was placed on looking at the family of the prospective bride. But in high school, how could I tell who came from a good family? To to be honest, I looked at the only criteria that was available to me: good grades.

[Though I can not tell how much this had to do with whom I picked to hang out with. A lot of who my friends were seemed to depend more on who picked me. That was certainly the case with my first set of friends--the string quartet. They definitely picked me -not visa versa. I even remember the exact moment. We were on an orchestra tour in Vancouver. And the elite of the high school, the top brass-invited me to sit down with them. I still have no idea why. I was mediocre in grades, and also in playing the violin.

Later, the actual girl I did marry, in fact had a straight A average (and came from a very fine family), but our relationship in those days was with zero romantic interest. We were simply friends. Only after I disappeared off the horizon because I went to Yeshiva in NY, did her interest in me begin to take on a different kind of aspect.

The irony is that by that time I was not looking at genes or DNA, but whom was the Rosh Yeshiva's daughter [whom I did not get].  So I actually married someone that was very much along the lines of my original intention--good family and good DNA (thank God). That was in spite of the fact that at that time I was not looking at that at all.

The Mishna {Bava Metzia page 100-a} brings a case:  a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth before or after the deal. So who owns the calf?
The Gemara asks why is there a question? Just say it belongs to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Lets give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס It is Somhos [or Rather it is Sumhos].
[Sumhos holds money in doubt is divided. The Sages on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of Gemara is "Rather it is Sumhos," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is Sumhos" is right then, that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the mishna is like Sumhos. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean Sumhos would agree with חזקת רשות







If your version of the Gemara is Bava Metzia [page 100] is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The Rashbam is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to Bava Batra page 34 in this way. The Rashbam holds there is  migo for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. Rav and Shmuel decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The Rashbam holds the reason is that there is a migo. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the Rashbam. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this migo be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the Migo.
This would depend on the Tosphot in Nida if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.






_________________________________________________________________________________
The משנה בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א  brings a case in which a person bought a cow. It is discovered that it gave birth to a calf.  We do not know when it gave birth. Before or after the deal? So who owns the calf?
The גמרא asks why is there a question? Should not it  to belong to the person whose domain it is in?
Answer: It is in an alley. Question: Let's give it to the first owner? Answer: הא מני סומכוס. It is סומכוס [or Rather it is סומכוס].
[סומכוס holds money in doubt is divided. The חכמים on the other hand hold the law is: "Taking money out of its domain requires a proof.] If the version of גמרא  is "Rather it is סומכוס," that means it is retracting its the answer of the alley. But if the version is  "It is סומכוס", that implies that we would not give it to the first owner because the משנה is like סומכוס. That leaves the answer of the alley in its place. That mean סומכוס would agree with חזקת רשות
__________________________________________________________________________________



If your version of the גמרא is בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''א is הא מני סונכוס or אלא הא מני סומכוס is going to make a difference if  סומכוס agrees with חזקת רשות or not.
If you hold הא מני סומכוס that means סומכוס agrees with חזקת ממון חזקת רשות

The רשב''ם is פוסק the law is like סומכוס.
This is related to בבא בתרא ל''ד in this way. The רשב''ם holds there is  מיגו for the person that grabbed the נסכא דר' אבא, he can disagree and claim that he never grabbed anything. Instead he admits that he grabbed it but he claims the object belongs to him. רב and שמואל decided the law is the person that grabbed it can keep it. The רשב''ם holds the reason is that there is a מיגו. But it seems to me that there is a further  reason for the רשב''ם. That is, that there is חזקת ממון.
Otherwise why would this מיגו be strong enough to leave the object in the possession of the one that grabbed it.
But you could argue that חזקת ממון here really would give the object to the person that originally had it. So it could be that סומכוס does not go with חזקת ממון and here they would split the amount the object is worth except for the מיגו.
This would depend on the תוספות in נידה דף ב' ע''ב if חזקה מעיקרא ו חזקת השתא שוות or if חזקה מעיקרא is stronger. If חזקה מעיקרא is stronger it seems that would apply in this case also of the נסכא דר' אבא that we would say the חזקת ממון would go to the first person from whom the object was grabbed.


המשנה בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א מביאה מקרה שבו אדם קונה פרה ונתגלה כי זו הולידה עגל. אנחנו לא יודעים מתי זה קרה. לפני או אחרי העסקה? אז מי הבעלים של עגל? הגמרא שואלת למה יש שאלה? הלא זה אמור להיות שייך לאדם אשר בתחומו  הוא נמצא? תשובה: זה בסמטה. שאלה: בואו לתת אותו לבעל הראשון? תשובה: הא מני סומכוס. זהו סומכוס [או אלא זה סומכוס]. סומכוס מחזיק כסף בספק מחולק. החכמים סוברים מצד שני שהחוק הוא: "אם לקחת כסף מתוך התחום שלו דורשת הוכחה]. אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא. 'במקום זה הוא סומכוס,' הכוונה שהיא חוזרת בה מן התשובה של הסמטה. אבל אם הגרסה היא "זהו סומכוס", הכוונה כי היינו נותנים לו לבעלים הראשונים משום שהמשנה היא כמו סומכוס. זה משאיר את התשובה של הסמטה במקומה. זה אומר סומכוס יסכים עם חזקת רשות.


אם הגרסה של הגמרא היא (בבא מציעא דף ק" ע''א) הא מני סונכוס או אלא הא מני סומכוס הוא עושה את ההבדל אם סומכוס מסכים עם  חזקת ממון (חזקתרשות) או לא. אם הגרסה "הא מני סומכוס" זה אומר סומכוס מסכים עם חזקת ממון (חזקת רשות). רשב''ם הוא פוסק החוק הוא כמו סומכוס. זה קשור לבבא בתרא ל''ד בדרך זו. הרשב''ם מחזיק יש מיגו עבור האדם  שתפס את נסכא דר' אבא, (הוא יכול לטעון שמעולם לא תפס כלום). במקום זאת הוא מודה כי הוא תפס אותו אבל הוא טוען החפץ שייך לו. רב ושמואל החליט שהחוק הוא האדם אשר תפס אותו ניתן לקחת אותו. רשב''ם מחזיקה הסיבה היא שיש מיגו. אבל נראה לי שיש סיבה נוספת עבור רשב''ם.  אחרת למה  המיגו הזה  חזק מספיק כדי להשאיר את החפץ ברשותו של האחד שתפס את הנסכא. אבל (מצד שני) אפשר לטעון כי חזקת ממון כאן באמת תיתן את האובייקט לאדם שבמקור היה לו הנסכא. אז זה יכול להיות כי סומכוס לא הולך עם חזקת ממון וכאן הם היו חולקים  את כמות הכסף ששווה הנסכא אם לא היה מיגו. כל זה  תלוי תוספות בנידה דף ב' ע''ב אם חזקה מעיקרא וחזקה של עכשיו שווות או אם חזקה מעיקרא הוא חזקה. אם חזקה מעיקרא חזקה נראה כי זו תחול במקרה זה על של נסכא דר" אבא כי היינו אומרים חזקת ממון תלך לאדם הראשון שממנו האובייקט נתפס.

There are a few valid basic interpretations of Rav Isaac Luria Ashkenazi. The Gra, the Ramhal, Rav Yaakov Abuchatzeira [grandfather of Bava Sali], and the Reshash [Shalom Sharabi]
The Ramchal has a concept that the השתלשלות  of the עולמות refers to time.
That means that Being in order to reveal itself creates and then uses time to reveal existing things.
Time is the window into existence.


[Most people know of the Ramhal [Rav Moshe Haim Luzato author or the מסילת ישרים Mesilat Yesharim]  one of the most basic and essential Musar books].

But to get attached to authentic Torah, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and the Gra are very important.

Reb Nahman made a point about being connected with the "authentic tzadik"--which is in fact an  insightful observation.

[Reb Nahman also had some other very important ideas like התבודדות talking with God  in one' own language as one speaks to a friend, and learning fast.]

Music for the praise of God

U-81 B Flat Major

The Avi Ezri of Rav Shach;- authentic Torah. Reveals the essence of Torah.

Since I love package deals, and learning the whole Oral Law is time consuming,  my recommendation is to learn the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach which contains the basic core of what it means to learn Gemara.
This way in learning even just a few pages one gets the idea of what it means "to learn Torah."

You really do not get this by learning just Gemara and Tosphot unless you are blessed with the ability to see beneath the surface. With Rav Shach however, it is all laid out in front of you.

You might try also Reb Haim Soloveitchik's חידושי הרמב''ם (which people call "Hidushai Reb Haim"), but I found Rav Shach's book to be better for me.
The great thing about Rav Shach's Avi Ezri is it is authentic Torah. It reveals the essence of what learning Torah is all about.

[I myself am generally incapable of that deep kind of learning. I was exposed to it at the Mir but even there I never got the hang of it. Then when I was learning with David Bronson, I saw him spontaneously uncovering the issues in the Gemara and at that point I began to be able to address the issues and sometimes even answer the questions. But unless you yourself have that kind of head or have a genius learning partner, the only way I know of getting into this kind of depth is with the Avi Ezri. You need a special kind of ability to see beyond the surface level of things to be able to do this on your own.]
[There are other books that can help fill in the big picture; i.e.,  Reb Haim's disciples and Reb Naftali Troup. But the Avi Ezri goes deeper and is also clearer.]

And can virtue be taught?

What is the proper education? And can virtue be taught? And does  education need re-adjustment as one leaves high school or college?

When I was young, I had a book about Abraham Lincoln that emphasized the fact that he was self taught,-- and that is definitely how I think about this issue.

However that is not to dismiss the need  for good learning partners.

In any case. my basic idea about education is that it does not stop after one leaves high school or college. Plus the basic structure I think should revolve around the four point system of Maimonides The Written Law (Bible), The Oral Law (Gemara and Tosphot), Physics, Metaphysics (by that the Rambam is referring to Plato and Aristotle).
My parents would add to this survival skills, outdoor skills, and learning a vocation. But Rav Shach I think would agree with all the above except the last one. From what I understood he held one should just sit and learn Torah until one gets married and at that point to simply take whatever profession that presents itself. And he certainly held one is allowed to receive the stipend that the State of Israel offers to anyone that wants to simply sit and learn [in some מסגרת or group].

[Allen Bloom and Allen Sokol have already pointed out the vacuum and emptiness of the humanities departments of universities .Allen Sokol wrote a paper of shear utter nonsense and it was accepted and published by a prestigious Philosophy quarterly. magazine-mainly because the jargon was right.

[The Metaphysics of the Rambam does not contradict the idea of learning the Ari and the Remak [Moshe of Cordoba ]. After all the Ari is really a more detailed version of the Neo Platonic System of Plotinus.]

[I can not say what the Rambam is getting at with his emphasis on Metaphysics. Though I am interested in the subject I can not see how coming to love and fear of God depend on learning Aristotle! But I say to myself that I figure the Rambam was a little more bright than me.]

[From what I can see universities are doing very well when it come to Physics for those who are talented but for those people like me that are not talented I think the best idea is to learn (like the Gemara says in Shabat 63 דרך  גירסא) to learn by just saying the words and going on.]

[The Gra held one ought to learn the Trivium and Quadrivium as mentioned by his disciple Rav Baruck from Shkolov who translated Euclid. ]