The issue between Michael Huemer and the Kant Fries school [Leonard Nelson] seems to be if there is such a  thing as non intuitive [that is not by the five senses] immediate knowledge, [faith]. That does not mean that Nelson necessarily that there is "implanted knowledge". [Huemer is right that there would be no reason to imagine that implanted knowledge has anything to do with reality.]

But what I think the idea of immediate non intuitive [that is not sensed] knowledge is that it is a kind of faculty that perceives things in the same way that the ear receives sound, the eyes light and the faculty of reason perceives universals. [The point is however that to reason you have to have beginning axioms. Otherwise you get the regress of reasons.]

I would like to add that this third source of knowledge comes even before Nelson [and Fries] It has its root in Plato with knowledge of the forms that is recalled. And Leibniz used this same idea but with the Platonic idea of preexistence of souls.

[Husserl and other who thought scientific knowledge is purely empirical and all empiricists and rationalistic were shown by Michael Huemer to be incoherent. [In one essay he shows how even the most basic empirical knowledge has to have some a priori content. The opposite side of things I recall him brings some sources that I forgot off hand.] In any case, Huemer does not go with the idea of non intuitive immediate knowledge as Nelson did. But he is not all that different since Huemer expands the role of reason. So he is including in Reason the same kind of thing that Nelson would have called immediate non intuitive. [For background I just want to mention that it all starts with Hume who wanted to confine the faculty of reason to "mereology", it merely tells you when there is a contradiction in your original axioms. The problem with Hume is he never proved that but simply assumed it--probably based on the fact that he used to be  a Geometry teacher to young students.]

It seems to me that Hegel is important but to this side of things, he does not add much from what i could tell. On one hand he certainly disagreed with Fries that there could be such a thing as non intuitive immediate knowledge. But he does have this way of approaching knowledge by a "dialectical process" which to me seems to be exactly what Huemer was getting at--that knowledge comes by an interplay between the senses  and pure reason. Would not Hegel just say that is dialectic?

Thus if a woman or man would go into the sea or a river with clothing that does not prevent the water from getting in that is a valid immersion.

The issue of a woman seeing blood once a month is called "Nida". If she sees after 7 days from the start then she is a "Zava".

I had a few thoughts about this today.

One is just that i wanted to share some information that I have had to share with others after it came up already  few times, [even though I have nothing new to add to the subject].

The basic way to go to a natural body of water after seeing blood is even with clothing. I mean to say that according to the law of the Torah only רוב ומקפיד הוא חציצה. That is the only time when going into the water can be invalid is if one is wearing clothing that stops the water from getting to most of the body and also that one does not want the water to get to the body. That is for a "division" between one and the water one would mean  deep sea diving gear. However there is a decree from the time of the Scribes that also מיעוט ומקפיד או רוב ואינו מקפיד חוצץ that is if there is something like a band-aid that one does not want the water to get through would also be a division between one and the water. Or clothing that would prevent the water from getting in even if one would not care if the water would get in. But there is no decree on a case where מיעוט ואינו מקפיד. Thus if a woman or man would go into the sea or a river with clothing that does not prevent the water from getting in that is  a valid immersion. [This is from the first part of tractate Eruvin, but it is also brought in tractate Nida. I have not added anything new here.]

[A nida goes into a natural body of water after seven days even if she saw blood for the entire seven days. (Which anyway almost never happens. A woman usually sees for 3, 4 or five days). The situation with a Zava is more complicated. Let's says she saw on day 8. She is a small zava. Then she waits one day and goes into a natural body of water. Same for two days. But if three days she is a regular Zava and needs seven clean days.  That is she needs to wait for an entire period of seven days without seeing any blood and then go to a river or sea and immerse and then she is clean.

w53 F Minor  w53 in midi  w53 in nwc format

Henry Kissinger held the peace of Westphalia was the political. It established the sovereign states of Europe. But from the point of view of the people at the time it was religious. Protestant versus Catholic. The Enlightenment thought as political [as the idea of getting rid of kings and priests and putting intellectuals in charge.] did not play a role as far as I can see.
The modern world with limited [or no] monarchs, and little role for religion from what I can see is a result of the English Glorious Revolution.

[Not that I think to go back to the way things were.]

From my point of view I think that one of the great benefits of trust in God is you stop worrying about politics or thinking you or "the people" control it.

It is well known that the main emphasis of Navardok was on trust in God. But he did not settle for the idea that he would sit and learn and God would take care of the rest. Rather he encouraged others also to learn Torah and trust in God.

That was from the advice of Rav Israel Salanter that he ought to concern himself with the needs of others. [He said in that generation that the troubles were so great that this was needed.]

But no school of Musar thought using Torah to make money was the proper approach. People certainly gave to Navardok but he never asked.

So it is a good question what one [let's say] wants to sit and learn Torah [not learn a profession] today? And I do not know a good answer to this question. I heard that Rav Shach said one should sit and learn and then when he gets married then to do something [anything] for making a living.

But none of the above are the reasons I bring up bitachon [trust] now.
The reasons I bring up the subject have nothing to do with when and how to make a living.
Rather I am thinking of a short note in Rav Nahman's book Sefer HaMidot that by trust in God good thoughts are drawn to one. על ידי בטחון נמשכים לאדם מחשבות טובות which to me seems to be a tremendous idea. [Of course it is well known that everything in the sefer hamidot has some source in the Gemara but simply Rav Nahman collected them in a short simple way].
It is common with Rav Nahman that he connects things in such a way that if you have a particular problem and you do not know how to deal with it, then you can find in his writings some connection to some other thing. So when you work on the other thing you get the first thing solved.

{I was also thinking of Rav Nahman's idea of how to learn what is known as "bekiut" which usually means going through a lot of material in the second half of the day. [That was how it was understood in the Mir and Shar Yashuv.] But Rav Nahman's idea of bekiut was not the usual type. For him it meant to go very fast. As fast as possible. [In the Conversations of Rav Nahman 76]. I think there is a element of trust in God to learn in such a way. [Also I am thinking that the idea was another idea mention in the major nook of Rav Nahman the LeM. There is intellect in potential and intellect in actuality. [I for get the actual chapter. I think it was around Vol I:25 or 24 or around there]. I think learning fast and getting through the book you are doing many times is learning in such a way that you get intellect in potential. Then by in depth learning, it becomes actual.

In terms of the argument between Hai Gaon and the Rosh [R Asher] [In Rav Shach Laws of Marriage 19: law 19.] it seems to me that Hai Gaon must have been thinking about the fact that in the Gemara the law is Lots of land נכסים מרבים the boys inherit and they support the girls. A small amount of land all the profits [rent or fruit in farm land] goes to support the girls but if they sell, then the girls lose. The ambiguous thing here is what happens if they sell when there is lots of land?  The Rosh thought obviously it is the same thing. The girls lose. But Hai Gaon may have thought that the girls would get the proceeds of the sell even in the law of the Gemara--before we even get to the decree of the geonim that the Ketubah can be collected from movable property.

I mean the Rosh has a point that proceeds of a sell of an object is not usually thought to be in place of an object unless we would be talking about maasar Sheni or some kind of חלות קדושה


What I think here is that Hai Gaon must have thought that when the Gemara says if the boys sell when there is not much property that the sell is anyway valid that that does not exclude the girls from getting the proceeds of the sell--even from teh law of the Gemara itself

The way I see learning is that it ought to be divided half time for Physics and half for Gemara. And the way I see doing both is both "Iyun" [in depth and lots of review] and "Bekiut" [to say the words as fast as possible and to finish that book many times. At least four times.
Gemara we already know why to learn. It is a commandment. Learning Torah is not just a positive commandment but to not learn when one can is "bitul Torah" which is a sin. That means to say that even though one fulfills the command by a small amount of learning, but that does not allow one to stop learning if he is not required to do so for "parnasa" [making a living] of other reasons doing commandments that can not be done by others.
If fact Bitul Torah is a concept which is almost unknown.
The Physics is because of the Rishonim that hold it is part of learning Torah. [Ibn Pakuda [author of the Obligations of the Heart, the first Musar book] and others. This is an argument among Rishonim. However I think those that hold this way were the way to go in this subject.]





So my approach is not to emphasize Metaphysics even though the Rambam highly recommended the Metaphysics of Aristotle.  Nor is my approach to recommend learning Rav Avraham Abulafia, or the Ari [Isaac Luria]. Not even the books of the Gra, or Rav Nahman. All these have great ideas, but I do not consider them as something to spend time and effort on.
So I see them as what you would call "reading". That is: they are informative. But not something to be spending time and effort on. Rather,-- they are more for one's "down time." Not exactly to relax--but close.
Some things I just do not see as being all that informative or valuable.