The subject of Kabalah is a little difficult for me to deal with. Mainly I would say there are people whose judgment I trust as having insight into spiritual affairs like the Arizal [Isaac Luria] and Rav Nahman from Breslov and Rav Avraham Abulafia to name a few. That does not mean that they never made a mistake but rather that they had great insights.

This is to some degree based on Dr. Kelley Ross of the Kant Fries school that there is such a thing as non intuitive immediate knowledge.
[Non known by senses but known not through any intermediate step.]

The difficulty that I see is that of the Sitra Achra--the realm of evil that takes a disguise as holiness. And to discern the difference I see is hard. So how can you tell the difference? To me it seems fairly easy since internal rot always appears on the outside. That is you can tell by the fact of a person being overly concerned about outward appearance tells you already that without that concern--something rotten would appear immediately.

But that might seem like a hard thing to discern. There is then another way to judge the situation-- character traits. That is even though character and holiness are two difference areas of value, still they are connected.


[In any case in terms of the Ari I recommend the interpretations of the Ramchal, Rav Yaakov Abu-hazeira, and the Reshash. I also ought to add the Remak as being important as David Bronson mentioned to me numerous times.

layman's books in science

When it came to layman's books in science-it depends. In terms of Physics and Math I decided that it was better to learn the actual material. But in other areas like dinosaurs I enjoy the books written by experts for laymen like me.  But the difference I am not sure of. because even in Physics I was looking at books by experts  and yet at some point I got the idea that that was no substitute for the real thing.

Americans have had for  along time a suspicion of experts. and have held highly form self educated people.  When I was young I had a child's biography of Abraham Lincoln where I learnt that he was self educated. And that model served me well in yeshiva where in fact to get anywhere in gemara most of the effort had to be  done on my own. And yet even with that I admit that without the impute of Shar yashuv [Naftali Yegear] and the Mir {Rav Shmuel Berenbaum} in NY --even with all the effort in the world-I would have been a pure am haaretz [ignoramus]. [That is what is called "knowing how to learn." You do not get that by learning. You have to get it from someone who really knows.]
[However for people that do not have the advantage of being in the Mir or Ponovitch I might just add that if you learn Rav Haim from Brisk that is  a good introduction to understanding what it means to know how to learn. Now on one hand he does concentrate on the Rambam but the inner idea is more or less the same whether you apply it to the Rambam or Tosphot.  Mainly knowing how to learn has to do with become able to see the deeper issues inside of Tosphot of the Rambam. Even if you are like me that these issues are not at all obvious. Still being aware of the depth inside of the Tosphot of rambam in itself more or less means that you know how to learn.

Can Morality Be Grounded in Science? [A question I saw mention in https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/can-morality-be-grounded-in-science

Dr. Michael Huemer deals with that exact question. In one place he mentions Hume's law that you can not derive an ought from an is. But he also adds in another place that even if you can not derive an ought from an is still you can learn. For example it is not a fallacy to ask if communism caused the death of millions then how can it be a just doctrine? That is not a fallacy. Further I might add that he does hold that reason can recognize moral principles but not because they are based on science. But rather because reason recognizes universals.

I think Michael Huemer [Intuitionists based on Prichard and GE Moore] and Dr Kelley Ross [Kant Fries school] disagree about these issues. But still I tend to see them in a similar way. For after all what is "non intuitive immediate knowledge" except for knowledge that reason recognizes right away without any intermediate step. Is that not the same thing as what Michael Huemer saying what reason does? And in terms of things being possibly wrong Dr Huemer goes into that. That one a priori can defeat another a priori. based on a higher degree of credibility and also i think if it is more or less supported by the evidence.

In the world of Lithuanian Yeshivas, learning Physics and Math were not high priorities --at least when I was there. On one hand I can understand this because in fact it takes a long time and a lot of effort to gain any kind of understanding of Gemara. So you really do not want distractions.

On the other hand at some point I noticed that Physics and Metaphysics were considered part of the Gemara by the Rambam. Also Ibn Pakuda [the author of the Obligations of the Heart].


[In the Obligations of the hearts you see this in perek 3 of behina where he says to learn the wisdom in side of creation and also  the spiritually inside of creation. Clearly two different things. The Metaphysics part you see right on the first page where he talks about the wisdom the Arabs call Metaphysics. So he is not talking about something differen than the Rambam.

[Still I admit this is not universal among rishonim. Some take a dim view of Aristotle.]

But in terms of Post Aristotle Philosophy what would the Rambam and Ibn Pakuda hold by?

My own feeling about this issue is that Kant and Hegel would be thought to be legitimate continuations of Metaphysics just as i think modern day Physics would be a legitimate continuation of what the Rambam is calling "Physics".

learning Torah for its own sake. Ketuboth circa page 64.

Let's say  for example you are sitting and learning Torah for its own sake. And your wife is complaining that you are not making enough money.--or any money for that matter. How much money are you required to be making to support her? קביים חיטים או או ארבעה קבים שוערים.

That is the volume of 12 eggs of wheat or 24 eggs of barley per week. That is actually easy to figure out because that is in the USA the way they sell eggs. [12 per package]. So just imagine a package of 12 eggs filled with wheat instead of eggs. That is what a husband is required to support his wife.
[about two cups of flour].

From the document of the Ketubah itself it seems to me there is not much to learn. True that a husband is required to give Io his wife two cups of wheat flour per week` to support her, but the fact that work is written into the ketubah does not in itself make it required. As you can see in laws of partners in Hoshen Mishpat of Rav Joseph Karo. That even if one writes a document "I will work for so and so thus and thus per week." and makes a kinyan [acquisition] the document does not cause him to be required to do anything since אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם (acquisition does not happen to anything that is not already in this world).

Besides that instead of trying to force a guy to divorce his wife on the basis of her complaint that he is not making enough money why not help him find  a job? This is exactly what Rabbainu Tam said in such a situation.


But this is not so common anyway. Most women that want a guy that is sitting and learning Torah are not in fact complaining about that fact. Just the opposite --they are proud and happy their husband is learning Torah.

This is usually what is the case when  girl marries a guy in Mir or Ponovitch. But the arrangement of kollel however seems to be a problematic issue. It is like using the Torah to make money. And even if that is not the intention it looks like it is. So at some point I decided it was best not to accept money for learning Torah and rather find some other way of making a living.

My advice however for people that love to learn Torah is this: before you get married make it clear to your prospective bride that that is what you are going to do --learn Torah for its own sake. Period. and if there is no money then so what. As one amora said to his wife when she was complaining about parnasa, " there are lots of reeds in the marshes". [I mean to say--no one is starving in Israel. But to avoid misunderstanding the best thing to do is right at the beginning of one's marriage to make it clear that you are going to learn Torah period. End of sentence.

Ketuboth page 78

I wanted just to mention a few issues that come up in Ketuboth page 78. One is that the case of when a woman acquires property before she gets married and then gets married. and then she sells it. there is a disagreement if the husband takes back the property in total (Rosh) or that it stays in the possession of the buyers but the husband just keeps the profits (Rambam).Also there is a disagreement if when he takes back the property itself if he pays for it. Even though these are two separate issues its seems to me that it would not do for the husband to pay for the fruits of the property so that opinion of paying for it must be going like the Rosh.

Another issue is the Tosphot on page 78b. There there is an argument between Tosphot and the Ran.

The issue is when the husband writes that the property of the wife that comes into the marriage he has no profits from it. In Ketuboth later on in the 9th perek that works if the note is written when she was just betrothed. But over here on page 78 it says property she has before she gets married she can sell after she gets married [not to Rav and Shmuel--but that is the opinion of the mishna.] To the Ran the writing has to be before she gets married but only applies to property she gets after she is married. To Tosphot the later on Mishna in perek 9 is going like R Hanina ben Akavia.( I.e. Tosphot is thinking now that R Hanina holds in fact that what comes to her when she is betrothed she does not own and can not sell. So if the husband writes he does not own it that is valid-but otherwise he would own it.]


The basic background here is this. property that comes to a woman when she is betrothed and then she gets married. Raban Gamliel says she can sell it and the deal is valid. R Hanina asks him if he has gained a wife should he not also acquire her lands? R Gamliel says we are already embarrassed about the new one [property she gets after she is married] and you want to make problems about the old?
Rav and Shmuel both say property that comes to her before or after she is betrothed and she sells it after she is married the deal is null. 


I should mention that I only saw the Ran after the Maharam Shif said to look him up and I admit the answer of the Ran is pretty good. Still there is a need to understand Tosphot.

I have learned that telling the truth at all cost creates a kind of force field around you that protects you from all evil. However, there is  a down side.

Since you tell the truth, you tend to think that others also tell the truth. That is often a mistake. But there is a principle that can help in this kind of situation. Once you have heard someone tell a lie, then you already know they will tell more lies. This applies to slander also. Once you have heard someone say slander, then you can be sure they will slander you too when you are not around .