Gemara Bava Batra page 56

 There is an argument between the Ri of Gash and the Rambam. [Laws of Testimony 21:6] [ sys The Ri Mi'Gash (Rav Joseph of Gash) was the teacher of the father of the Rambam.] Three brothers testify for three years of "hazaka". The Mishna itself says that is valid if each brother testified for one year and another person testified with him. But if there are other witnesses that come and say how can you say that when you were with us the whole time. To the Ri Migash there is no payment to the owner since brothers can not testify together. The Rambam says there is payment. The question is how to explain the Ri Migash that even the Ramban [Nahmandes asks on]. Rav Shach explains this in Laws of Testimony. But I have to write his answer at a different time because of a certain amount of chaos that is in my life this minute.

OK. [My life is always in chaos, but Thanks to Heaven that I have a few minutes now to write the answer of Rav Shach and my slight question after that.] The answer of Rav Shach is that the Jerusalem Talmud says ומנין שלא יהיו עדים קרובים זה לזה? הגע עצמך אם הוזמו לא מפיהם הם נהרגים ("From where do you know that witnesses can not be relatives? Just think about it. Is it not so that if they would become false witnesses they would not be  killed?") The Yerushalmi is thinking that no testimony can be valid unless there would be a punishment if it turned out to be false.   עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה. And the Rif brings that Yerushalmi.

I have no question that Rav Shach is correct that this Yerushalmi is the source of the Ri Migash. But the question remains how is it possible that any testimony can be accepted if not for the fact that if it would turn out to be false that there would be the same punishment that the false witnesses wanted to give to an innocent person? You still have the very same question that started the whole process.

The problem with Torah from the Sitra Achra is not just that it is wrong. but that it brings wickedness into the heart of those that study it. ]

Someone asked me about the more mystic teachings of Torah and I thought to share my thoughts with the wider public. I have to say that my impression has been for a long time that the best book of mysticism that I have ever seen is the Tree of Life [Eitz Haim] of Rav Isaac Luria. (The other writings of the Ari I think are better to learn after that.) After that, I think the best is the Nahar Shalom of Shalom Sharabi. [The reason I say this is that even though the Eitz Haim itself is pretty much self explicit, still there are two problems in putting it all together. One is the "Drush HaDaat" which was not included, but implies a modification of that whole system. Plus there is the whole second half of the Eitz Haim which automatically implies a sort of modification on the whole system. The only book I have ever seen that addresses these two problems is the Nahar Shalom of Rav Sharabi. [The two sidurim of the Rashash take the system of the Nahar Shalom into account.]

However I should add that I gained a lot from learning the ideas of Avraham Abulafia, Rav Moshe Haim Luzato (Ramchal), Rav Yakov Abuchatzeira,  the Gra, and Rav Nahman of Breslov.

Outside of these few,  the problem with mysticism is that most of it is from the Dark Side [Sitra Achra]. --The way to avoid that problem would be by taking heed of the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication that already drew a line between what is OK and what is not. Rav Nahman of Breslov was not under that excommunication in spite of what most people think, and hinted plenty of times to the same thing the Gra was talking about, but also ignored. The Na Nach group however based on Rav Israel Odeser seem to be a bit more aware of this issue. [Rav Oddeser was also plain and open about this issue.] 

[The problem with Torah from the Sitra Achra is not just that it is wrong. but that it brings wickedness into the heart of those that study it. ]

x78 E flat major   x78 midi  x78 nwc

 There are lots of interpretations of Hegel. [See the Cambridge Companion to Hegel.] I am not claiming any great understanding of any of them. Rather I simply see the world in the of Neo Platonic form that has God at the top and creation being "flowed" forth [emanation]. And this fits in with the original way people understood Hegel. [But also has elements of Kant Fries and Leonard Nelson]. But the basic structure is neo platonic.

There is a good reason to notice the great points in each of these different philosophers. The reason is that the best of the philosopher today--the deepest and most thorough also have this same set of differences. Kelly Ross  and Robert Hanna goes with Kant. Huemer with GE Moore. And though he is back in time, McTaggart was with Hegel. 

non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith] i

 what made me interested Fries and non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith] is the site of Dr Kelley Ross [https://www.friesian.com/]. Dr Ross is also going with Leonard Nelson. But I wonder if the gap between Hegel and Fries is so great as to be unbridgeable. I wonder about that because I read some of McTaggart and he answers some of the questions on Hegel in  such away that makes me think maybe the gap is no so great. Besides that there are some aspects of the Fries approach which leave me wondering. After all I see the electron does not care if one thinks of it as a wave or particle. If there are two slits, it decides to be  a wave. If there is one slit, it decides to be a particle.  It does not care about us observers.

Besides that, as Michael Huemer pointed out, it does not make sense to say that implanted knowledge is knowledge. If it is implanted, it makes no sense to say that it should have anything to do with reality.

So all that leaves me wondering if some synthesis is possible. 

What I tend to is the idea that Hegel is right about the metaphysics. The three part structure of reality. And the way to get to understanding is by dialectical process. That takes the place of experiment. Similar to what Kant thought he was doing with the antimonies.  

But when it comes to how we know things it seems that Leonard Nelson was right that you need a starting point. Non intuitive immediate knowledge [faith]. 

[A lot of work was done on Kant after 1781. Then Hegel came along and that also produced a lot of commentary. Then you have the "Analytic" schools  starting in some way from Frege. But the "intuitionists". G.E. Moore and Prichard seem the best. But there is something a bit odd. Each one of these schools seems to have some amazingly great points, but at the same time something slightly hard to swallow. So you can see why all that leaves me wondering. As for the present day it looks to me that the Friesian school is the best based on Fries and Leonard Nelson. But that does not seem to cancel, out the good points of G.E. Moore or Hegel. 

[When I say there is something odd about "philosophers-" nowadays you probably know l what I mean.  As Sandra Lehman once told me, "There is something about philosophy that seem to detract from common sense."  At least the Kant Fries school of thought seems immune to this kind of problem. In fact, Kelley Ross has a whole essay seeing if perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be understood in a Kantian kind of way. That is a lot different from other "philosophers" that criticize physics before understanding it.]

Makot page 5 the Gemara

 In tractate Makot page 5 the Gemara says that the regular laws about witnesses that have been refuted applies even in in cases that require lashes. [So the false witnesses do not get makot unless the sentence was already decided. That is the case was settled to give lashes to the innocent person and after that other witnesses came and to those witnesses "How could have seen that felony in such and such a place when you were with us in another place that whole day?"

This is a question on the Rambam that writes if an innocent person was given lashes because of their false testimony, they get lashes. This is a question because the general law about false witnesses is that they get the punishment they wanted to give only if they tried to give it but not of it was actually preformed.

The Minhat Hinuch, Rav Akiva Eiger, and the Pnei Yehoshua all answer that the Rambam holds they get lashes because of the verse לא תענה ברעך עד שקר thou shalt not testify false witness against thy neighbor. 

But that does not answer the fact that the gemara says to receive any punishment for false testimony one needs the regular laws of false witnesses -that includes "as they planned, not as they did." שאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה

Rav Shach brings an different answer to try to explain the Rambam from the book "HaMeir LaOlam" that we say אין עונשים מן הדין [We do not give a punishment because of a "all the more so"] only in the case of a death penalty. [The idea of that answer is that normally you would say if witnesses wanted to give a punishment and they turn out to we liars then they get that same punishment then all the more so if they actually succeeded in getting that innocent person to get the punishment. But we do not say that in the case of a death penalty because the is a special traditional teaching] "as they planned, not as they did." שאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה.

However Rav Shach shows from the Tosefta that this answer does not hold because the Tosefta holds that   [We do not give a punishment because of a "all the more so"] even applies to all other areas like laws about money. However Tospfot [in the very beginning Bava Kama]does hold that there is an argument between our Mishna and the Tosefta about this very issue.

Rav Haim of Brisk has a different answer for the Rambam. He says that lashes is different from the death penalty or a monetary fine. lashes needs to be done in a legal court and if not it is just hitting. So even if the false witnesses did get the penalty to be applied to the innocent person, that still is is in the category of "they planned to do but did not do." Rav Shach however asks on this for they never plan on giving a legal penalty to an innocent person. In any penalty they know they are lying. They simply want either to have the person get the death penalty or lashes of whatever. And if they succeeded then they succeeded. So in all cases it is  a case they would not get that penalty. So in conclusion there does not seem to be any answer for the Rambam.

  

learning secular studies

 Rav Nathan, a  major disciple of Rav Nahman did not hold from learning secular studies at all. And that is clearly what he understood from Rav Nahman. However that might be the aspect the was conveyed to him by Rav Nahman. For the Le.M of Rav Nahman says that there are deep secrets of Torah hidden in the physical world. [Not just the spiritual aspects.] LeM Vol. I, chapters 1, and 56. Vol. II, chapter 96.

The trouble with secular studies is that most are junk. Unless one is learning practical things like automobile repair or natural sciences, the vast majority are just a way for universities to drum up some cash

[In Hovot Levavot [The Musar book called Obligations of the Hearts by Ibn Pakuda] SharHaBehina chapter 3 you see the spiritual aspects in things is not the same as the wisdom in them.]

[It is fairly clear in the rishonim [mediaeval sages] that follow the line of Rav Saadia Gaon that Physics and Metaphysics are aspects of learning Torah. But there are plenty of other rishonim that hold just the opposite. An argument of rishonim "these and those are the words of the Living God". So there can not be any final decision. Both are valid, even if the custom is to follow one or the other.]