Dr Kelley Ross and Dr Michael Huemer are coming from very different kinds of approaches. Dr Ross from German Idealism especially of Leonard Nelson and Fries. Dr Huemer from the intuitionist school {Prichard]. Still both very much against communism. And while I agree totally that communism is not very good-I also got to see  the Ukraine and started realizing things are not so simple. To me it looks like politics depends on DNA to a large degree. Capitalism just does not work automatically. But DNA is the one area that philosophy just can not deal with. that is the fact that people are different. not just individual people but also whole groups.

Sorry I can not go on but the library is closing and I do not have my own computer.

Talmud Bava Mezia 43

In the Talmud Bava Mezia there is a mishna that says that one who gives over money that is not sealed to a money changer--if the money changer loses it he is liable [The money changer is liable]. the reason is it was open so he was allowed to use it. To Rav Huna that means even if it was unavoidable accident. Rav Nahman askes on him from a braita [A kind of teaching that is from the time of the mishna but not included in the mishna]. It says if a gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over to a money changer money to guard--if he uses the money he [the gizbar] is liable the sin of trespassing meila.[The idea is the if the permission to use the moeny is what counts then here also the permission to use the funds ought to make the gizbar right away liable]
Tosphot asks on this question from the Mishna that one who sells some product and has received the money but the buyer has not yet picked up the product the seller can change his mind and renege on the deal.

Rav Shach and the Maharam [under the Maharsha] and the Maharam Shif all go into this subject.
But what I wanted to say here is that the question of Tosfot is thus: It does not seem to be any question on Rav Huna since in a case of meila or just regular buying and selling the permission to use the money does not exist. Only actual using the money counts. So also in our case of just giving over money to guard what ought to count is to make one a borrower is actual using. And permission to  use should only count as far as being considered a paid guard.

בבא מציעא מ''ג ע''א. משנה המפקיד מעות אצל שולחני אם היו פתוחים ונאבדו הוא חייב לשלם. לפי רב הונא השולחני הוא נחשב שואל ומחויב גם באונסים אבל לרב נחמן הוא רק שומר שכר. רב נחמן שואל שגזבר שמפקיד מעות אצל שולחנית אם השולחני השתמש אתם הגזבר חייב במעילה. היתר תשמיש אינו מועיל לעשותו שואל אלא שומר שכר. תוספות שאול  שבמכירה המוכר שמקבל מעות אינו יכול להשתמש אתם עד שהלוקח מושך את החפץ. היינו שבמכירה זה שנמצא הכסף ביד המוכר אינו נותן לו רשות להשתמש אתו. ולכן במעילה הדין דומה שאין היתר השתמשות--ולכן מה הקושיה על רב הונא?

Rav Nahman mentions the importance of being attached to a true tzadik a few times in the LeM [ליקוטי מוהר''ן]. The trouble is well known that it is hard to know who is a true tzadik and who is a fake tzadik.
Rav Nahman himself mentions this problem in the part of the Lem about saying over stories from true tzadik. He says there that only one who can tell the difference between day and night can say over stories of true tzadikim.

This came up today because I was in the synagogue of Breslov of the Na Nach group and they were learning that particular Torah lesson in the Lem. Vol I, chapter 8 I think]..

[I ought to mention here that Rav Nahman does not contradict Rav haim fgrom Voloshin in this idea of attachment to a true tzadik. The reason is that Rav Nahman does not say the intention of one's serve is to be attached to a true tzadik (as that would constitute idolatry according to Rav Haim from Voloshin] Rather--the idea of Rav Nahman is to serve God in connection with a true tzadik.

So what is a true tzadik. To answer this I think it helps to see the idea of מחלוקת בין הצדיקים argument between tzadikim [in the Lem vol 1. chapter 5 I think].


That is there can be vast differences between what kind of service the true saints did in order to serve God. It all comes down to the question of Socrates, "What is virtue (arete)?" That is to say--even though there are difference between great people--but what is the one thread that unites them? One is the one thing in each that makes them great?

[I found the idea of Aurobindo about the danger of the intermediate zone to be helpful in this regard. Too many people think they can tell who is a tzadik by their dress or other external signs.They are not aware of the danger of the intermediate zone that can give evil people the ability to preform miracles that seem to be from the realm of holiness.]

Bava Mezia 43a. The Mishna says that the fact that one gives over some money to guard to a money changer that is not wrapped up, that means the money changer is already responsible. To Rav Huna he is a borrower. To Rav Nahman he is a paid guard.

Later Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a braita that says if gizbar [one appointed over Temple funds] gives over money to a money changer, the money changer trespasses the prohibition of {Meila} using unauthorized temple funds] if he uses the money.

The question I have at this point even before getting into the Tosphot on the page is how this relates to what Tosphot says later on on page 99a. There Rav Ami said if one gives over some object [bedek habait] to another person--as soon as he gives it over, he trespasses the prohibition. even before the other person uses it.

This relates to an essay in Rav Shach's Avi Ezri conserning Meila.

The Sitra Achra [Dark Side] seems to be part and parcel of the religious world.  The reason I think is some idea that Rav Nahman brings סביב רשעים יתהלכון [psalms 77]"The wicked go round about". That is,--where ever there is holines the Dark Side tries to get in. This makes it hard for me to find anywhere I can sit and learn. To some degree I feel that if people had listened to the Gra and Rav Shach this problem would not be here. But also I realize that people will often choose evil even when great tzadikim like the Gra warn correctly.

Wyat Earp and the OK Coral. I think the Clantons were trying to draw the Earps into a trap.

There are probably experts out there that know better than I. But I want to suggest that there is some aspect of the shootout at the OK Coral that I find hard to understand.
Was it so hard to find the Earps? What in the world were the Clantons and McLaurys doing around Fremont Street? They certainly were not looking for the Earps. Rather, what seems to me is that they were trying to draw the Earps into a trap. That is why one fellow came up to them while there were at Allen Street and 4th and told them the Clantons were at the OK Coral. They were hoping the Earps and Doc Holiday would walk straight to the OK Coral from where they stood,  and when their back were turned to start shooting. But in an unexpected way, the Earps instead turned up to Fremont and 4th Street and started walking down Fremont beyond the back entrance of the OK Coral, and then  they saw the Clantons standing around that empty lot besides the photography studio. [They were obviously waiting for the Earps. They certainly were not going around looking for anyone!]

This is also I think the cause of Behan to try and stop them thinking that the Clantons plans had gone haywire.

One point I would like to bring out is that the Earps were not hard to find. Vigil was the Sheriff, and his two brothers were his deputies.

[It seems clear to me that Wyat Earp suspected a trap, and thus walked up the opposite way.]

way of learning of Rav Nahman

The way of learning of Rav Nahman was to say the words and to go on. And not to do any review until one has finished the book one is learning until he or she has finished it. Then to review again and again. This comes up in the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76. But it is also brought in his Magnum Opus {the LeM}.
I suggest applying this to things that are beyond the general accepted Torah sessions. --To include Physics and Mathematics. The reason I say this is more or less based on the Musar book The Obligations of the Heart and the Rambam. These Rishonim saw in natural science and Metaphysics an imperative. To the Rambam, Physics and Metaphysics are included in the commandments to love and fear God.
However, it is true that most people that are good in these subjects have IQs that are way beyond us regular people. So my point here is not that everyone can be a genius at these subjects-- which I realize are difficult. It is rather that everyone has access to these subjects --even though they might think that they do not. And these access is through this path of learning fast--saying the words in order as fast as possible and going on to the end of the book--and then tart again.     

[In Far Rockaway, Rav Freifeld emphasized review of every chapter 10 times,- but I found that did not work very well for me. I whittled it down to review twice of every paragraph. But when it came to math and Physics, I found the only thing that seems to work for me is this path of learning of Rav Nahman.]
[However, even with Rav Nahman, there is a place for deeper learning [as he also mentions in Conversation #76] [And the Le.M VOLUME I chapter 74]. So when I try to learn Gemara, I do try to spend a little more effort into the deeper aspects. But when it comes to Physics, I find that efforts on depth tend to take away the time I need to get the big picture. So there I tend to concentrate more of Rav Nahman's path of just saying the words and going on.]

Just for a reminder "outside wisdoms" are not books on natural science, but as the Rif [Rav Isaac Ilfasi ] and Rosh [Rabbainu Asher] explain they are books that explain the Torah in other ways besides the Sages of the Gemara.[You can find this idea of the Rif in the first mishna in chapter Helek in Sanhedrin]