world of Litvak yeshivas

Learning Torah in an authentic way refers to the the intensity of learning. It might have some relation to learning in depth or perhaps learning fast like I have been saying. But the thing that makes the Litvak yeshiva special is the intensity--the feeling that every word of Torah is more precious than diamonds. On one's own I think it is hard to get the idea of what this is about. But once one has been in an authentic Litvak yeshiva for a couple of years, then even later the feeling and sweetness of Torah never really leaves one.

My own experience in the world of Litvak yeshivas was quite amazing. I believe that my future wife only came to me because of that context. She must have felt that I was involved in something outstanding and I guess she wanted to be a part of it. [She began writing to me when I was still in Far Rockaway in Shar Yashuv and then came to NY herself when I was at the Mir.

I mean to say that there is something "holistic" about the Lithuanian learning Torah world--that is that encompasses everything--all aspects of life. It is far from being just about learning Torah. It is about being a mensch, good morals, being  scrupulous in honesty in money matters. But learning Torah is the focal point that everything turns on.

Most of my efforts to get back into real authentic learning Torah were foiled. WHAT DOES IT MEAN "REAL LEARNING"? It is the intensity of learning

I noticed that Rav Shach in one of his talks says the main thing one can do for Klal Israel [The people of Israel] is to learn Torah.  The issue is not how much territory does Israel control. This idea of Rav Shach as is well known finds support in the books of the sages and a lot of the source material is found in the Musar book the Nefesh HaHaim.
But what I wanted to add is that in the book of Kings I. 9 verse 11 it says that Solomon gave to Hiram 20 cities in the Galil (Galilee) . So again we see this idea that the safety of Israel is not a matter of territory. [The Galil is divided into three parts, lower, middle, and upper where Safed is. So it was definitely Israel proper that Solomon was giving away.]

Though I do not learn much Torah anymore, I can see the point of Rav Shach.
It was a point that I first encountered in Shar Yashuv and later in the Mir. But I did not see much support for that point of view until I discovered the Nefesh HaHaim.

Part of the reason I do not learn much is that most of my efforts to get back in real authentic learning Torah were foiled and even backfired.
The Nefesh Haim [Rav Haim from Voloshin a disciple of the Gra] brings out this point about the importance of learning Torah and I am pretty sure that I was not so aware of it. After I graduated from high school I did want to learn Torah more seriously so I came to NY to Shar Yashuv. That is a yeshiva mainly known for being for beginners. But while there I was befriended by the later rosh yeshiva Naphtali Yeager and he showed me the depths of learning. That is the way you can see in my little booklets that I wrote on Gemara. Only later when I came to the Mir Yeshiva did I become aware of the path of Rav Haim Solovietchik.


WHAT DOES IT MEAN "REAL LEARNING"? It is hard to define. Mainly it is what you experience in a Litvak yeshiva. It is not just learning the gemara in depth as Litvaks do. It is the intensity of learning

mystic system of Sar Shalom Sharabi and R. Isaac Luria

The main system of Rav Sharabi you can learn in his book the Nahar Shalom. However I found for myself that simply praying with the sidur HaReshash for a few years helped me get a clearer idea of his system.[I ought to mention that I was praying with the sidur of the Reshash for the unification--not to gain better knowledge of his system.]
[There are two sidurs of Rav Sharabi I ought to mention. For a long time I prayed with the small one even though I knew that Rav Mordechei Sharabi said there were mistakes in it. And in any case I felt, it was less accurate than I needed. Then one great day I was in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem and discovered that in some private home there, the family was selling the actual large sidur of the Reshash.]

It is known that the Gra said that the Ari is speaking in terms of an analogy, not literal like he sounds.

The only one that got support from any world class mathematician was Leonard Nelson. That was the famous Nelson Affair file that David Hilbert kept in his office.

I do not understand why but the school of Kantian thought of Leonard Nelson was well known in the USSR, but almost completely ignored in the West.

[It is an odd fact that the only one of these that got support from any world class mathematician was Nelson. That was the famous Nelson Affair file that David Hilbert kept in his office.
An besides that we know Gauss was impressed with Fries and praised a book of Fries to a student that asked about it.


[I might mention that the correspondence of Godel indicates a kind of two tier structure of the world like the Neo Platonic school. To me it seems very close to Nelson.


[There are people who simply ignore the whole thing and want to go back to Aquinas like Ed Feser. The idea of finding in Medieval scholastic philosophers all the answers is perhaps a true point. There is something amazing about medieval thought. I have no idea what to say about that though.]

Also all of this just refers to philosophy. They all had something to say about politics but that does not seem to be where their insights were very great. On the Contrary--it was English thought [John Locke, De Foe] that seemed to reach the greatest heights when it comes to political thought. 

Michal the daughter of Saul

Michal the daughter of Saul was a kind of tragic figure. Clearly David was in love with her, and visa versa. When Avner ben Ner came to David, David had just one request to make of him, "Bring me back my wife Michal bat Saul." And she saved his life at least one time that we know about against her own father's wishes.

So the fact that she did not have children is sad. But furthermore --who were the descendants of Saul and the Givonim hung? It says in Kings II that five of them were the kids of Michal and then it names the father --the person that was the husband of Merav--her older sister! The Ralbag says that they were raised by Michal, but were not actually her kids. And that makes sense to me. And I can not think of any other possible explanation.

King David told Solomon to execute Yaov.

I am pretty sure that King David was upset with Yoav for killing Absalom. He could not tell his son Solomon to kill Yoav for that however,--- since it was justified. So he said it was for Avner ben Ner and Amasa.[Why did King David not send Yoav out to get the guy that rebelled after Absalom? I think David never really forgave him.]

The events with Yoav are sad. I think  King David would have not been able to do anything without Yoav. That makes Yoav's end particularly tragic.[King David told Solomon to execute Yaov-and he did.

there were no kings in Edom until Yoram

I asked a certain person in the Litvak study hall about the Gra's comment that the kings of Edom were around the time of Moses. He answered this question very well in pointing out that the verse about the kings of Edom says they reigned before there were kings in Israel. [I was asking about the fact that the book of Kings says there were no kings in Edom until Yoram the son of Jehoshaphat.]
But then he noted the odd fact that I had not seen. --The verse in the Torah says there were kings in Edom before there was a king in Israel. The verse in kings says there were no kings in Edom until Yoram --and that was long after there had already been kings in Israel for a more than a hundred years.

What occurs to me is this. King David as is well known conquered Edom. So the kings of the book of genesis refer to the kings of Edom before Moses and the last one at the time of Moses. After that we have no information. But then when David conquered Edom, they by definition stopped having kings. So the verse in the book of kings is referring to the time that Edom came out from under the yoke of Israel and began having their own kings again.I think this makes sense because at that point the book of Kings does not name the kings of Edom. So it is safe to assume they were not the ones mentioned in Genesis.