The problem with "Torah Scholars that are demons" that is brought in the LeM I:12 of Rav Nahman of Breslov and Uman, really is an open Gemara in Shabat: "If you see a generation that troubles are coming upon it go out and check of the judges of Israel for all troubles that come into the world come only because of the judges of Israel."
So you see it was merely the fact that Rav Nahman choose to emphasize this point for some reasons unknown to me that makes it significant. But it is not as if he was the first to discover it.

To tell who might come into this category however is more difficult since Rav Nahman gives relatively few hints as to what it is that turns a person into a demon.

What my feeling about this is that the best path is to be safe and follow as closely as possible the straight path of Torah of the Gra, and Rav Israel Salanter, and Rav Shach. [Which would be in a practical sense to learn Torah in both in a in depth session and besides that a session of learning quickly and an emphasis on the Ethics of Torah that is the essence of Torah]

w65  [w65 in midi format]

God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.

I have wondered about the issue of trust in God because the only time I actually saw an approach like that that was real to people was for the short time I was at the Mir in NY. It was a general approach there that if you sit and learn Torah, God will take care of everything else. And that was done in deeds, not words.

What helped me get the message was the book of Navardok [Madragat HaAdam] but even without that, this attitude was simply embedded at the Mir.
Maybe it was also in Shar Yashuv to some degree but I do not recall.

It also helped me understand the idea of doing some effort in order to make  a vessel to receive the blessings from God, but that over exertion of effort is lack of trust.

The surprise for me was that as long as I stuck with that approach it worked. But when I abandoned it in order to "do effort",-- that is exactly when God stopped helping me.
So it is like the verses in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Psalms and many other places say--God helps those that trust in him. Those that trust in their own efforts, He abandons.
[The main verses that I am thinking of are a few in Jeremiah] ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח בהשם והיה השם מבטחו..."Blessing is the man who trusts in God and makes God his trust. He will be like a tree planted on streams of flowing water... Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and places his trust in human efforts. He will be like a broken well that can not hold any water."

[Please look at the Musar [Ethics] books that deal with trust in God: Obligations of the Hearts, and Madragat HaAdam. You will see the issue of trust as opposed to effort is an argument among the rishonim.]

From a Physics blog about the Virus

https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/04/lockdowns-are-man-made-not-how-nature.html#disqus_thread

Sadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from theSadly, I already expect 3) the shutdown will continue and perhaps escalate, towards bankruptcies of big companies, governments, and riots. The "experts" are the root of the problem but in some sense, the willingness of millions of ordinary morons to buy the same - and increasingly more radical - garbage from the "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem. "experts" is the actual root of the societal problem.

I try to model my attitude towards the issue of the virus based on a few statements of Rav Nahman of Breslov. One is that he was not thrilled with doctors. He certainly did not trust everything they were saying. Sometimes there are basic areas that they have got down pat, but sometimes when they venture into areas they that are new they really are just guessing. See the end of the Conversations of Rav Nahman.
Another thing is the idea of  ריבוי השתדלות [over effort]. He held that in terms of trust in God, one still ought to do some kind of minimal effort;-- but doing more than the minimum shows lack of trust in God. 

When one marries a woman by money, document, or sex, two kinds of acquisition take place. But acquisition by handkerchief does not work.

The subject of קניין סודר ("Kinyan" by handkerchief) acquisition by means of exchange of a handkerchief needs some clarity.
It comes up in the Tosphot HaR''id in Kidushin page 3.
But just for background information, I want to explain what the issue is.
It all starts from the Mishna there that, "A woman is acquired by money, document, or sex." The Gemara says that is meant to exclude barter. That also excludes exchange of a handkerchief.
["Why would we think that a woman is acquired by barter? Because we learn קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון acquisition is said by the field of Ephron. And the same word acquisition is used in discussing when one marries a woman. כי יקח איש אישה. From where we learn a man can acquire a woman by money just like a field is bought with money. (That is why you see nowadays people marry by means of a ring.) So you might think barter also would work since a field can also be bought by barter. But the Gemara says we would not learn that way because barter can be less than a penny and  a woman would not want to be acquired for less than a penny."]


The idea is that when one marries a woman two kinds of acquisition take place; (a) acquisition of marriage.   The idea is that a person can be obligated by means of a "Kinyan" [acquisition]. For example to sign a contract to produce an F-35 in a certain amount of time. This creates an obligation on a person to do the work. [It does not have to be a document. It can be by any kind of kinyan (acquisition) that an obligation is made. Nowadays we depend a lot on documents, but in fact acquisitions can be made by lots of things. [Pulling, pushing, lifting up. For example, if one buys a piano. How do you acquire it? Not by lifting surely. Not by money either. If you paid money and then want out of the deal you get the money back. So you would have to move the piano. And then the deal is finished.]] Another thing that happens when you marry a woman-(b) an acquisition of monetary obligations.

So the idea of the mishna is if one marries a woman by any one of those three ways in front of two witnesses, then these obligations are חל ("hal") that settle on you and her. That is: the acquisition takes place.

[The ring used nowadays is for שווה כסף (something worth money). That is learned from a Jewish slave that can be redeemed by money (if he is owned by another Jew). However let's say a Jew is sold or sells himself to a gentile in order to pay for some obligation. Then how can he be let go if the owner wants to let him go? One way is if someone gives to the owner some money. [I do not think paper money works here.] Another way is a document. But not by means of something worth money. So we see there are times that something worth money is not counted as money. -even if the owner wants to accept the object worth money instead of money, that does not help. It has to be money. But in terms of marriage it is thought to be considered as money.

[This actually brings up a question asked by Rav Shach and Rav Haim of Brisk. That is, that acquiring a woman by something worth money is learned from a Jewish slave. So since it does not work in all cases with a Jewish slave, why should it work at all with a woman? It is a half a gezera shava. [That is sometimes when the same word is used to two places the laws of one place are applied to the other place  except when you can only learn half. Then it does not apply at all.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.

 Kant in his three critiques limits what we can know and what we can reason about. [That is things that fall into the category of conditions of possible experience. Outside of that are "things in themselves" Hegel takes this into account in order to determine how to stretch these boundaries.

Both seem important but to understand Kant I would go with Kelley Ross [the Friesian School.]

To understand Hegel I would go with Mctaggart.

Hegel is important because you want the big picture. What is the universe all about. Without that question there is absolutely no point to philosophy at all. So Kant can limit what we can understand but you still after him to see what is possible to understand in the big picture but to attempt that understanding taking into account Kant's point about how far human reason can go.


Kant limits what you can build. The reason is limits on reason. Hegel gets around those limits in order to build based on a process of dialectics based on what you see in Plato and Socrates. But with Hegel you get to conclusions that do not end until you get to God. That is he starts with Being and gets up to God. The Friesian approach has faith [non intuitive immediate knowledge] so in that way gets to God in a way, but not like Hegel. [My own impression here is that knowledge does progress. It is not pure empirical nor pure reason. See the paper of Michael Huemer that shows this. But Michael Huemer goes more with probability. [The kind you learned about when new evidence is added to your original probability based on Bayes.]
The Friesian approach needs a bit of study. Probably the best approach is that of Kelley Ross in his blog the Friesian School. The reason is that there are flaws in Fries's approach (that I admit I forgot) that Leonard Nelson corrected. But then in Nelson there were other flaws. So the best seems to be the modified Fries approach of Kelley Ross.]

At any rate, my point is that you need Kant to limit what you can legitimately claim. But then you need to build up within those limits and that is probably by Hegel.