Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot t

 There is something I have been puzzled about in Rav Shach.  A convert and idolater that inherit from their father, the convert can say to his brother the idolater "Take the idols, I the other stuff." But not if they are partners in business. That we know from the Gemara. The odd thing that Rav Shach comes to answer is why the Rambam in laws of forbidden foods says the reason the convert can not say this in the case of partnership is because the convert wants the existence of the idols to continue. Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot that there is an opinion that even by two different sorts of things we still say there is retroactive choice. That much seems clear and a good answer for the Rambam. The puzzling thing is the reason Rav Shach says this argument exists in the Gemara. He says the opinion that holds there is retroactive choice in two sorts  holds there is not money in two sorts when we are talking about inheritance. The questions here jump out and that is why I have not written anything about this.

I still hope someday this will become clear. In the meantime let me just say some of the questions. (1) Money value or not should not determine if there is retro-active choice or not. (2) The case Rav Shach comes to answer is that of partners, not inheritors. So there is money in the objects and there should not be retro active choice. [Other questions I have forgotten for now.] 

depths of Tosphot.

 A lot of people are not aware of the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. I myself was unaware of this in even though I knew there was an emphasis on in depth learning in Shar Yashuv and all Litvak yeshivot. But I had no idea of how to get to the depths. Like a deep sea diver--one needs the proper equipment,

So my year of study of Hulin I just did the Gemara with some Tosphot. And the class given by Rav Forest went into some Tosphot and rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch with the Taz and Shach on each subject. 

I learned on my own the Maharsha and Rashba, Ritva and Tosphot haRosh. Still I had no entry clearance into the depths of the Gemara until I asked Naphtali Yegeer a question on Tosphot. Then Before I could explain the question he asked me to say over the question and answer of Tosphot, When I started to do so I could feel a sort of of bump in the Tosphot. There he showed me that tosphot is intending some deeper level. Some question that Tosphot means to ask in around about way. but then would naturally occur a deeper question and there too in Tosphot itself would be the answer to that next question and thus one would go on for about twenty levels successively getting deeper and deeper. So I became aware of this depth in Tosphot even though I could not get there myself.

At the Mir in NY the sort of learning was very much along the lines of Rav Chaim of Brisk.--But the classes were not in Rav Chaim's book but rather the roshei yeshiva had there own new ideas in every class that were along the lines of Rav Chaim. It was like a continuation of of Rav Chaim. [The Roshei yeshiva there never wrote their ideas --all except the first year teacher who wrote the Sukat David which was a synopsis of his classes.] 

I still was not able to get to this level of depth, but I was aware that it existed sicne the window to it had been opened to me once. Later in Uman when David Bronson came I saw this level of depth again. He had learned in the yeshiva of the Gra in Jerusalem of Rav Silverman. [This seems to be a proof that the real authentic spirit of Torah is found only in Litvak yeshivas.]

the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals.

 Kant comes up with an idea of intellectual intuition as a way to understand our limited faculty of reason as being dependent on external input. But that seems to be not exactly so. Rather it is possible that the intellect can recognize input that is not sensory input but rather of existing universals. This point of the Intuitionists [GE Moore, Prichard] seems quite true. To Kant intellectual intuition would have to create its own objects. But that doesn't seem to be so.

Hegel also criticizes  this idea of Kant from a different angle. One is that this idea in itself points to the connection between Being and Reason. This connection Kant recoiled from. Hegel also used an argument that one can not recognize that something is finite unless he has gone beyond it and seen the point at which it stops. So to recognize intellect as being limited means one has already gone beyond it. 

learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics

Only after some time was I aware of the rishonim that hold of the importance of learning Torah along with Physics and metaphysics. That fact was not well known in Shar Yashuv or the Mir. It seems to me that even if I would have known about this I still would not have gone to the local university since I had no method of doing math at the time. [I was not aware of the path of learning of just saying the words and going on could be applied to math and physics. And philosophy as it was taught then in universities did not appeal to me at all. It seemed to me that philosophy was vacuous meaningless and when it comes to some some conclusion it is invariably wrong and lunatic. [It seemed that Kant was barely mentioned, and the universities were all into existentialism or "analytic philosophy."] If I could go back in time, I would today probably try a more balanced approach. Half day Gemara and Tosphot and half day Physics. (Philosophy I would still avoid unless it would be about basics--Plato Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant.)

world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living.

 There is some thread of wholesome clean living that permeates the Litvak yeshiva world and all those who walk in the path of the Gra and Musar. It is not something that I can put my finger on exactly, It is not physical cleanliness. Rather is is a sort of aura that a group has when it is devoted to good character traits.

But on the other hand there can be the problem that not every individual is like that. Even the leaders. Still the general feeling I have of that world of straight Torah of the Gra is that it exemplifies the peak of wholesome living. But one needs some sort of merit to stick with this. 

Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point.

 Hegel thought that the idea that reason needed to be confined to areas of possible experience meant it was empirical. Which invalided Kant's point. (That reason can be synthetic a priori.)  Hegel thought that by a process he called "dialectic" reason could progress beyond areas of possible experience in the dinge an sich. [But his dialectics did not progress as science in which a priori and empirical evidence work together but rather dialectic in finding contractions in the concepts themselves until one gets to the Absolute Idea, the Logos of Middle Age philosophers. ] Fries answers this question in a different way saying that there is non-intuitive immediate knowledge. And the intuitionists like Michael Huemer hold the whole question is ridiculous in the first place since why limit reason? Based on some misconception of Hume? [about the idea that reason can only tell your what is already implicit in definitions.

This results in my idea that each of these three schools has a good point  and ought to be part of the cannon of philosophy --Kant-Fries. Hegel. G.E. Moore.    

[Another aspect of Kant that is hard to understand is the core idea that the categories unite the intuitions [the sense perceptions]. As Kelley Ross points out that this is an important point. A bathtub full of computer chips is not a computer. You need all the functions of the mind  to process the information. But my question is "Who is the user"?

.

Conversation 76

In the Conversations of Rav Nahman is brought how he would go through four pages of the large Shulhan Aruch of Rav Karo during the time when people would start to gather in the morning to pray until they started praying. [At a normal pace of reading that would take about 2 hours if you take about 40 minutes to get through one page with the Magen Avraham and Taz plus the other commentaries. But lets say that in his days the large Shulchan Aruch did not have all the smaller commentaries, just the two on the sides [Shach and Taz and their parallels in the other volumes.] Still it would take at least an hour. So we know that Rav Nahman was reading more than fast. He was reading very, very fast. 

Ok you might say, that was because he was smart. But that is not the point. The point in Conversation 76 is that everyone ought to learn fast. As it says there "All you need in learning is to say the words in order and then to go on. And if you do not understand right away, eventually you will understand [by reviewing the book again and again.] And even of you never understand, so what? For the greatness of a lot of learning goes above everything else." לא צריכים בלימוד רק האמירה לבדה, לומר הדברים כסדר וממילא יבין ואם אינו מבין  תיכף יבין אחר כך ואם יישארו כמה דברים שאינו מבין מה בכך כי מעלת ריבוי הלימוד עולה על הכל

[However in Torah learning, I could not do things in exactly that way. In fact, in Litvak yeshivas the morning is for in depth learning, and the afternoon for fast learning. However this advice of Rav Nahman I found to be the only way I could get any Mathematics at all. For lots of review in Math made no sense to me. If I did not understand at first, then review did nothing. It did not matter if it was lots of review, or a little. So the only way I could get into math at all was by this method of Rav Nahman, and in fact, eventually I would start to get the idea (just like he said). That maybe does not make me a Peter Scholze or Fesenko, but I certainly understand a lot more than if I would not have learnt at all.