I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.

I was looking for a long time for some kind or any kind of analogy that would explain to me some of the difficulties that I encountered in the religious world.  I encountered I kind of analogy in a comment I saw on some site about a problem in the Mormon world. That is to say there was a girl that was coverted; but then encountered the cold shoulder. So this comment said the problem was this: People  try to covert others in order to get "points" but then the treatment they give to those they convert is like  "Old Money". [Either you are born into it or no.] I thought this helps to explain this phenomenon in the religious world that I encountered.

[There are plenty of other explanations, but I was looking for something a little more down to earth. For example we find in Rav Nahman the idea that where holiness is, there the Sitra Achra (Dark Side) specifically spends most of its energy to entrap and catch its prey. סביב רשעים יתהלכון is a verse from pslams that express this idea round about go the wicked. That is the wicked surround the holiness trying to get in.]

The explanation that I find more satisfying is that people try to convert secular people to their way of belief in order to get brownie points,- but then treat them like trash, the way "old money" treats others. That is as second rate citizens or sub humans. [That is if you are not born into the club, then you will be treated politely but as soon as you are no longer thought of as an asset or source of money, then you will find the very same people you thought were your best friends will turn against you. This is especially in the religious world which has no source of income except by means of secular Jews. So this is more pronounced there.



Just to be fair I ought to add that Moshe Israel mentioned an opposite problem in the Reform world--that of "the new rich"  nouveau riche. So in fact it is hard to find a proper kind of balance and a decent place to sit and learn Torah.

The actual Constitution of the USA I think is mainly based on the political structure of England in the 1700's. However I agree that natural Law played a large part in the basis of the USA.. But natural Law I think had a basis in Saadia Gaon and Maimonides and then later developed by Aquinas.

The Rambam has an approach that is like this. At first mankind needed natural law as was revealed to Abraham the Patriarch. Only then could the revelation at Mount Sinai take place.

Aquinas develops this idea further to combine it with Aristotle's teleology.[That the are natural goals].

[This is just my basic impression. i really have not had time to study these sources. However I am pretty sure that if you look at England and specifically Daniel Defoe's essays you will see that the USA Constitution is almost an exact blueprint of the political structure of England except in the significant areas where it departs from the English model because of issues that cause the revolution in the first place.

intense review

You find sometimes in the Gemara the idea of review. Rav Pedat reviewing one lesson with a student 400 times. Or another amora learning a law 40 times [that the meal of Purim is only in the daytime].

Intense review was certainly emphasised in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים that emphasizes learning fast and also review.

So I generally bounce back and forth between these two approaches.

When it comes to some subjects--i realize that no matter how much review I do I will not really gain much understanding until I have gone over all or most of the material. There are other areas that I feel review is a good idea.

 There was a period I forgot the importance and depth of Tosphot until I began learning with David Bronson. Then I was more or less reminded of the importance and depth of Tosphot. [Even those I had been introduced to this important aspect of learning in Shar Yashuv, I had forgotten about it completely.]
At any rate, it became known in the Litvak Yeshiva World that both approaches are necessary. both intense depth of learning and also fast learning which is done in the afternoon.

Since Lithuanian yeshivas are at the top and peak of their game I have nothing to add to their standards of excellence. But I DO THINK THIS WAY OF LEARNING FAST by just saying the words and going on is a precious gift that can and ought to be used also for mathematics and physics.
For not everyone can become a genius in Physics but that does not mean that one should ignore it. It is important even if one can not make it to the top of the field. In an unexpected way you can see this in the books of Rav Nahman about the hidden wisdom that is inside of all creation. But to claim Rav Nahman would agree with me goes too far. Rather the best support for this idea comes from the Rishonim [medieval authorities] like the Rambam and Rav Ibn Pakuda [and the general approach of schools of Torah in Spain]

Aurobindo noticed something about the intermediate zone that is more or less ignored by the religious world. That is Ego Inflation. Sometimes people that do a certain degree of work in some kind of Divine service get to some spiritual level. But then they think of themselves as much more significant than they really are. Or sometimes they are simply being used by the Dark Side  without their being aware of it.

Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits.

My own feeling is that Rav Israel Salanter certainly must have realized that the main point of Torah is to come to good character traits. [That is Torah is a goal centered system. At least that is clear from the Talmud itself and also from the Rambam.] That includes the commandment of learning Torah. And that was probably the major motivation for his starting of the Musar Movement. -Though this is usually not stated openly. But that does bring often to the question that many people have that the results do not seem to conform to the intention. At least in my own case I think at least subconsciously I had thought that joining up with the religious world would help bring to family values.--Little did I know! But the fact of human messing up a system does not necessarily invalidate the system. [Unless it is clear that the actual implementation actual was a direct result of the system itself--not just a warping of the system for personal greed].
My feeling about this is that it comes under the category of the Dialectic of Hegel.  [That is to say, I do not think that the dialectic of Hegel is only a process that takes place by means of Logic. --Though that is in fact one area. But I think it takes places also in the categories of Being. So the more you get into something, often that process in itself ends up the exact opposite of what you thought it was supposed to bring about.] {Schopenhauer however would have a different idea of this process. ]

Reason with Faith

The approach of the rishonim to combine faith with reason. It was pointed out to me that that is not necessarily the approach of the prophets. It does seem clear that the prophets wanted to be understood on their own terms.

My own approach is that I have seen a bit too much of religious fanaticism to think that faith without reason leads to much good. Reason without a priori assumptions also is empty.
So to me it seems the approach of Reason with Faith is the best. But then what is the right kind of synthesis? Immediate non intuitive knowledge. as brought in Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross makes the most sense to me.

Talmud Babylonian Bava Mezia page 43a Tospfot.

Tosphot asks a question on Rav Huna. The Maharam Shif makes note that the same question could apply to Rav Nahman. Besides that I also have a question on the answer of Tospfot to that question.

The Mishna says when one gives to a money changer money to guard that was not wrapped up, the money changer can use the money and so if it is lost then he has to pay it back. Rav Huna said not just if it was lost in a small accident but also in a big accident. That is he is a borrower since he can use it. Rav Nahman says only in a small accident but in a big accident then he does not have to pay it back. Tosphot asks on Rav Huna whether a seller can use the money he receives before the buyer has picked up the fruit that he is buying. [That is before the actual deal is done]. If he can  use it then there is a question from the barber. [If one pays a barber with money (bedek habait) that one dedicated for use in the Temple. then he is not transgressing the prohibition of meila until the haircut begins.] If he can not use it then why can he not say "your money was burned up in the attic before you picked up the fruit and since I did not own the money at that time then the deal is off."
So the Maharam Shif asks why not ask the same thing on Rav Nahman. Normally you would respond well the question does not apply to Rav Nahman because to him the money changer is only a paid guard who can not use what he guards. But here we have a case where the paid guard can use what is is guarding.

במשנה יש דין הנותן כסף לשולחני לשמור אם הכסף אינו חתום אז השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף ולכן אם הכסף נאבד השולחני חייב. לדעת רב הונא הוא חייב גם אם הכסף נאנס באונס גדול כמו גזלן עם נשק. היינו יש לו דין כמו שואל. רב נחמן אמר רק אם נאבד אבל אונס גדול פטור כמו הדין של שומר שכר. תוספות שואלים מן המשנה נתן לו מעות ולא משך ממנו פירות יכול לחזור בו היינו בקניין רגיל אין חלות של קניין עד שהלוקח מושך את הפירות. זה שמשך המוכר את הכסף אינו מעלה ואינו מוריד. אז תוספות שואלים ממה נפשך לדעת רב הונא. אם המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה זה שנתן לספר אינו חייב במעילה מיד? היינו שיש לנו את הדין גזבר או מי שיש לו כסף של בדק הבית שנתן את הכסף לבלן ה גזבר חייב במעילה אבל אם נתן את הכסף לספר לא. החילוק הוא שמיד שנתן כסף לבלן הוא יכול לרחוץ מיד אבל בספר אין קניין עד שמתחיל את התספורת. אז אם מוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף עד שלא נגמר את הקניין למה מי שנתן לספר אינו חייב מיד. מצד שני אם המור אינו יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אז למה המוכר אינו יכול להגיד ללוקח נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה? היינו עד שלא נגמר את הקניין נשרפו הכסף. אז אם אין אחריות למוכר הוא יכול לומר נשרפו מעותיך בעלייה.
המהר''ם שיף שואל למה לא לשאול אותו דבר על רב נחמן? לרב נחמן השולחני יכול להשתמש עם הכסף הגם שהוא שומר שכר ולכן יש לשאול המוכר יכול להשתמש עם הכסף אבל אינו חייב באונסים. תוספות עונים בתירוץ הראשון אין שמירה לכסף אלא בקרקע. אבל אני שואל שזה היה צריך להיות גם בשולחני עם מעות צרורות! והוא אינו חייב!