I was at the Na Nach place today and there came up an interesting discussion about important it is to marry only a woman who does not listen to religious authorities. The reason being that marriage is a union of minds and when someone else is in your wife's mind, that is not a real marriage.

It occurred to me then that in the LeM of Rav Nahman that this same idea came up in the LeM vol I:61 where it says not to give religious authority to people that are not fit for it since by that is cause that Israel goes into exile. And the language Rav Nahman uses is על ידי זה מגרשים ישראל ממקומם which is the same language used to causing of divorce between couples.

The path of the Torah.

There are things that the Tora is strict about. This can not be derided as "religious fanaticism." And example is idolatry. So what makes the world of the religious problematic is not whether to be strict of not. It is what to be strict about. If only the things that the Torah actually cares about were the top of the list of importance, then everything would be alright. That is why the path of the Gra is so important. Not because of the Gra as much as it accurately defines what Torah is about.  

 Kant actually never shows how mind and body are connected. Rather he shows that they must be connected-but does not show how. [That is not my new idea here. This has been noticed even from the very first review of the Critique by Shultz.] 

So to me it seems that Fries and Leonard Nelson were right in the claim that there is a deeper source of knowledge, non intuitive immediate knowledge, that empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge are just secondary manifestations of. But how do they combine? I think that Hegel was right in this that the way these two origins of knowledge combine together is by a give and take process where each modifies the other --what he terms ''dialectics.'' [Hegel actually also never shows how they are connected. But he does come onto this dialectical process to show how the kind of knowledge that is a part of intuition and the kind of knowledge that is independent of intuition work together.--basing himself on Socrates.]

[And this fact was noticed by Michael Huemer in one of his essays where he shows that there is no such thing as empirical knowledge without some a priori assumptions built into it. [See his list of essays.]

So what you have is the primary source of knowledge that Fries and Nelson call immediate non intuitive. Them the two parts split off into empirical and a priori parts. Then they recombine to create actual knowledge. 

 The importance of learning Torah and the basic message of Musar which is Fear of God and good character traits you really only get with the path of the Gra. The path of Rav Nahman does not really have "hatmada" to be learning Torah constantly as an essential part of it, not the sort of basis of Musar. You get other great things in the advice of Rav Nahman but not those few points which really relate to the Gra. 

And I see these points of the Gra as being the essence of Torah. Diligence in learning Torah, Musar and fear of God in the way described in the books of Musar and not to speak lashon hara [slander]. To me it seems that without these points that nothing else can even begin. Sine que non. But if you have the Gra, then there is tremendous benefit in the advice and ideas of Rav Nahman.

[And I admit that my idea of expanding the idea of learning Torah to include Physics is not really part of the path of the Gra though it is hinted at in other rishonim. Still it seems to me that everything has to start with the Gra. The Gra is sine que non.

 The idea of the natives that Columbus encountered were peace loving is somewhat inconsistent with the facts. Columbus encountered the Caribs when he returned on the second trip. The Caribs controlled three islands. They used to make raids on other islands to eat the men and enslave the women. The other islanders were terrified of the Caribs. They had nothing of the noble savage myth. [On the first trip, the other  natives had begged Columbus to protect them from the Caribs]

balance between iyun and bekiut [in depth learning and fast learning.]

 One of the really great things I learned in Shar Yashuv of Rav Freifeld was the idea of review. I had learned the Musar book Ways of the Righteous and also had see the a book bringing the path of learning of Rav Nahman which was to say the words and go on. So the fact that Motti Freifeld [Rav Freifeld's son] kept on telling me about the importance of Iyun [in depth learning] and review gave me a sort of balance. [In fact, it was the conflict between these two extremes that gave me the idea of doing every paragraph of the Gemara with Rashi twice in Hebrew and once in English, and then going on.] So nowadays, I still try to find a sort of balance between these two approaches-- whether in the Gemara, Tosphot and/or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach or in Mathematics and Physics.   

I once mentioned to my learning partner in Uman, David Bronson that it seems to me that without the emphasis on learning in depth that I got in Shar Yashuv in my beginning of learning, that I never would have gotten the idea at all.  For I noticed that unless one gets the idea of learning in depth at the very start of one's learning, then no matter how much "bekiut" fast learning he does later, he never gets the idea of the in depth sort. [They just tend to skip over Tosphot as if the details are irrelevant. Therefore even with much learning, they never get the essence of Torah.] 

הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב

נראה לי שקשה להבין את הגמרא בעבודה זרה כ''ג ע''ב. היא שואלת איך זה שבני ישראל נצטוו לשרוף את כל העצים האלילים כשנכנסו לארץ כנען? אחרי כל הארץ ניתנה לאברהם ושום אדם לא יכול לגרום לאסור את מה שלא שייך לו. האם גמרא זו יכולה להיות על פי הדעה אין כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות שזו שיטת ר' אלעזר, או לפי השיטה יש כוח ביד עכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשרות שזו שיטת רבה ישראל? פירוש הדבר שכאשר ישראלי קונה את התבואה מהעכו''ם, הוא עצמו יצטרך לקחת את תרומה ומעשרות ולתת אותם לכהן ולוי. נראה כי הגמרא בעבודה זרה לא יכולה להיות לפי אחת הדעות, שכן שניהם מדברים רק על תרומה ומעשר, אך שניהם מסכימים כי עכו''ם יכול להחזיק אדמה בישראל כשמדובר בחוקים על כסף והוא יכול לבנות לחפור וכו'. אז איך בכלל מתחילה שאלת הגמרא? הכנעניים היו בעלי אדמות מבחינת החזקה כספית. אז הם יכלו לשתול עצים ולגרום להם להיות אסורים! אולי אתה יכול לענות שהכנענים לפני כניסת ישראל לארץ לא ממש נקלעו לקטגוריה של "קניית האדמה". זו היתה שייכת לצאצאיו של אברהם, אבל הם גם לא היו גנבים. אם הם היו קונים את האדמה, היינו אומרים שלמעשה הם יכולים לאסור על העצים ששתלו וסגדו. אך למעשה הם לא קנו את האדמה.

I should add that after I thought of this I saw that Rav Shach intended the same question and answer in the Avi Ezri. But he did write this openly. Only after I thought of this question and answer I saw that Rav Shach really intended to to say the same thing.

Anyway there is a lot more to go into this sugia but I was not prepared to write all my thoughts so I just wrote this short piece. In the meantime for those interested the best thing is to look at Rav Shach in Law of Idolatry.