I have thought that it would be a great idea if people would have the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and learn it every day. The reason I say this is that there is a depth in Torah that is hard to reach on one's own efforts. Now this kind of depth certainly is there just in the Oral Law [Gemara]. However it can be hard to reach without Rav Shach. [Certainly this kind of depth in the Gemara and Rishonim also can be seen in Rav Haim [Soloveitchik] of Brisk and his other disciples. But Rav Shach brings that kind of learning to it peak.]  

I might add here that if you go into any Litvak yeshiva, they always talk about the importance of the Rishonim and they are right about that on one hand. But on the other hand they are not mentioning that then after the morning learning session they go and hear a class from one of the teachers. And that class always contains  the achronim, e.g. the Ketzot HaHoshen, R. Akiva Eigger, the Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Haim of Brisk, and his disciples. They are not actually thinking that you on your own can just open up the rishonim and understand their depth.

So I see the learning of the achronim just as important as the rishonim. But that already depends on one's level. At first probably the best is to go to the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua. Then after doing a few tractates like that, then to go to to Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

 x79mp3 x79 midi  x79 nwc

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.]