fine line of keeping Torah and learning Torah but avoiding the insane religious world.

It is hard to know how to walk to fine line of keeping Torah and learning Torah but avoiding the insane religious world. Probably the best thing is to learn Torah at home. There is something quite definitely "off" in the religious world.

What is exactly the issue I am not sure of. I was discussing this with David Bronson in Uman after he first got there. We discussed this exact issue for about an hour for a few days in a row and came to no conclusion. At that point he made a suggestion that instead of wasting our time on seems to be an unsolvable problem let's sit and learn gemara. [Talmud]

And that is what we did for a few years until I returned to Israel for a year and a half. That is from where my book on Bava Metzia came from.  Then I went back to Uman for Rosh Hashanah and stayed again for an extended period --and that is from where the second book on Shas came from.

But that does not mean the original problem has been solved. The religious world is still just as insane and in fact getting much worse at an exponential rate.

The issue is hard for me even to attempt to approach. But my basic thinking is that it is a matter of  balance. That is to learn and keep Torah is important but with balance.  Not the insane way the religious world does it.

There is something nowadays that is odd when it comes to marriage.

I wish some marriages were stronger nowadays. But to get to that point it is important to keep definitions accurate.

Adultery ניאוף is sex with a married woman. See Leviticus 20:10 when it defines adultery as sex with a married woman.


 Sex outside of marriage is mentioned in Exodus where it says if one has sex with a unmarried girl he must marry her unless her father objects. If it would be adultery then both would get the death penalty as it says in Leviticus.  זנות prostitution is a different issue. It is sex for money. However there is the case of a woman who is specifically for one man but not married . That is a girl friend. This is allowed in the Old Testament. That is פלגש Concubine.
The Patriarchs had girl friends. And also Caleb Ben Yephuna the friend of Joshua also[Chronicles I 2:46] [The Gra brings the example of Caleb.]
To argue that all sex outside marriage is adultery is not accurate.

In the Shulhan Aruch of Rav Joseph Karo is brought the debate between the Rambam against most other Rishonim. The Rambam says what you find in the Old Testament refers to kings. But that is hard to defend in the case of Caleb ben Yephuna. The Ramban wrote that more authentic copies of the Rambam have that the girl friend is allowed.

There is something nowadays that is odd when it comes to marriage. Fragile, yet like being in an oven. For previous generations I can see it was the basis of everything. But nowadays it is like soggy toast.

I think it is fine to depend on the opinions of the vast majority of Rishonim that hold a girl friend is permissible, But I admit I never did any deep learning in this subject.

the philosophers I think are the most important

Even though I mentioned a few days ago the philosophers I think are the most important I wanted to add a few that I have had great benefit from.
The important ones: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Reid, Kant, L. Nelson.

But to add to that list I want to mention Rav Nahman from Uman who does a very good job in defending faith (not saying I agree with everything there, but his insights are amazing). Also Steven Dutch, Kelley Ross (Friesian School), Michael Huemer, the Rambam's Guide and also David Hartman's book on the Rambam, The Madragat HaAdam by Joseph Horvitz from Navardok, and Isaac Blazer's the Light of Israel, the Nefesh HaHaim by Rav Haim from Voloshin.

These are not all exactly philosophy but more like books that deal with world view issues.


[My basic world view orientation you can see is Neo Platonic. That should  clear from the top list. But also the bottom list. Jewish thought --especially Musar of the Middle Ages and also Rav Nahman are all thoroughly Neo Platonic--even when they are not aware of it.

My philosophical bent was apparent even to my peers in high school. But to repeat what I have said before, my interest is in finding the Truth, not in philosophy per se. Thus after I found the school of though called the Kant Fries School, I am basically satisfied and feel free to learn Gemara, the Avi Ezri and and Math. I do feel a need to keep searching for philosophical problems.

[If at least Leonard Nelson was in English I might spend more time of him.]

Progress in Math and Physics by just saying the words

It is known that the way to learn Torah in the Talmud is by saying the words. Not just reading them. They bring this from a verse חיים הם למוצאיהם אל תקרי למוצאיהם אלא למוציאיהם That is for the sages to discover this idea they add a yod to the word "to them that find them" To make it into to them that say them with their mouths.
[The verse is "It is  life to those that find it" in proverbs." The hint is "It is life to them that say it"

Once I discovered the opinion of the Rambam about Physics and Metaphysics being part of the mitzvah to learn Torah, I simply applied the idea of saying the words to Math and Physics also. [In terms of Metaphysics however I never really found a text that I could use in the same way.]

[I had seen this opinion of the Rambam hinted at plenty of times in Medieval Musar but I never really accepted it for a few reasons-. One was I was involved in Torah learning at the Mir in NY and I really did not want to hear anything about "secular subjects". But after some time, I began to see the point of the Rambam.]
I am not saying this will make you a genius in math, but I have found it to be very helpful. I certainly made more progress in math and Physics by just saying the words a in order and going on than I would have by my previous approach which was "This is too hard for me so I might as well drop it and try something else." Needless to say this later approach did not get me very far. So before you ridicule this approach of (1) saying the words approach and going on in order until you finish the book,--just think of how much progress people make in the other way (2)"This is too hard so I might as well drop it".


In the "Guide" itself the benefit the Rambam see in both Physics and Metaphysics is Love and Fear of God.  Knowledge in these areas creates a different kind of person.

Furthermore if you look at the Musar book אור צפון Hidden Light by a disciple of Rav Israel Salanter you will see that Love and Fear of God internally are not always visible or perhaps never viable externally,

Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman also mentioned this important approach--saying the words and going on.--along with a lot of other great advice.

“If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”²


I saw recently a story about the Gra that two witnesses came to him about a certain case. I forget the case but it was about something sexual. And it must have been significant enough for the Gra to agree to listen. He told one witness to stand outside while he listened to the other. Then they brought in the other witness. He said the exact same testimony. As soon as he finished speaking the Gra said "They are liars."
The people that had brought them did not understand how he was so sure. Afterwards he explained.
 The Mishna says when two witness come you examine them and if their testimony is found to correspond then they are believed. The Gra asked why does the mishna add that about being found to correspond?Why not just say the testimony corresponded? He said because it has to be "found." It can not be the same exact thing. No two people seeing the same event or hearing the same person talk will report the same details.

Foundationalists like Michael Huemer.

Non Intuitive Immediate Knowledge-- has a lot of support from people not in the world of the Kant Fries School at all. Rather what are known as foundationalists like Michael Huemer.  In the world of foundationalism there are considered foundational ideas. It is not all that different from Leonard Nelson.

The thing about Michael Huemer and that general school is that they are not really addressing the problems that began with Berkeley and Hume.

So to address the actual issues you really need Leonard Nelson. But it still ends up that a lot of the arguments from the foundationalists work well to support L. Nelson.

For a simple example. Let's take Hegel's argument against immediate knowledge. He goes into the true fact that you have to know something about what you are believing in the first place, and thus it is not really immediate. Well Dr. Huemer says a good answer to that. He says that Reason recognizes universals, but that perception comes only after you understand the concepts that are involved. So to apply that to Immediate Knowledge is simple. It is is immediate even though one has to understand what is being discussed before one can know it to be true.

Leonard Nelson for some reason is a minor footnote in the world of philosophy;- but that says more about the lack of substance in the world of philosophy than it does about Nelson. Judging by the general stupidity of philosophy in the 20th century, it is a compliment to Nelson that he was never accepted.


[Personally I found the importance of Leonard Nelson to be that it helped me with faith--non intuitive immediate knowledge. But later I found a lot of other reasons go with that school of thought.]

Suppose you are sitting in class...Defense of Faith.

What makes the school of thought of Leonard Nelson based on Kant and Fries interesting is this. Suppose you are sitting in class and the teacher asks a hard question in a subject you know fairly well. You are about to raise your hand to give your answer, but a second before you do the two smartest kids in the class raise their hands and the teacher calls on them. They both give the same answer and it is in completely different from your answer. So my question to you is this. Are you now going to raise your hand and give your different answer?

That is the situation with the Kant Friesian school of thought. I am sitting in class and looking at Hegel and he looks pretty good to me, or some other philosopher. But then Gauss raises his hand and says Jacob Fries has got the right idea. Then I am getting nervous. So I hesitant to raise my hand. The David Hilbert raises his hand and says Leonard Nelson who founded the Kant Friesian School got it right. Essentially the same answer as Gauss. Now I am for sure--not going to raise my hand. No force on earth could get me to raise my hand at that point.

The point is  actually close to the actual events. My interest to to find a coherent self consistent [not self contradictions] world view that makes sense and has external consistency with the actual world we live in. It is not to be learning philosophy. So once I settle on a point of view that works for me, I am satisfied and think that I can now go to the beach or to the local study hall to learn Rav Shach's Avi Ezri. I do not have to be doing philosophy all the time.[I am also contemplating starting a session in the Shach in the book of Rav Joseph Karo. That is the commentary of the Shach on Hoshen Mishpath and Yore Deah.]

A major point I gained from the Kant Fries School is the faith is a kind of perception unlike reason and unlike the senses, and it is valid. This  more or less coincides with what Rav Nahman was saying about faith--that it is a kind of perception unlike other faculties.

This makes sense also from the standpoint of Thomas Reid that we have faculties of mind more than just pure logical reasoning and sensation.  This point was raised by Michael Huemer also that Hume assumed all that reason can do is perceive contradictions. Hume learned a little Euclid and  got convinced that all the type of reasoning he found there is all the mind can do. He never shoed this to be true. He simply asserts it as a given fact--over and over and over again. I don't know. Maybe reason does more than that? maybe it perceives universals?

You can ask why not simply go back to the scholastics like Ed Fesser suggests. The reason is that there do seems to be issues in the Middle Ages. The main issue is that the beginning axioms do not seem accurate. But after the Enlightenment when beginning principles seem better, but then the logic falls apart.