Lenin and Trotsky were more intent on getting rid of absolutism of the czar rather that how to form a proper government.

 It seems to me that Lenin and Trotsky were more intent on getting rid of absolutism of the czar rather that how to form a proper government. You can see this in his way of dealing with private property of the peasants. He wrote to leave it in their hands but still to leave management of it to the government.\What good is any private property that you can not decide how to use it?  Clearly the talents of Leni  and Trotsky were in the overthrow of the czar and not in government at all.

I was in a  house that the Jews that had been living there during the time of the last czar had dug a tunnel from that street  [now called st.  Lenina 34] until the city center where there was transportation to leave during the time of the czar. That was about a mile of digging through shear granite with no electric tools. They were obviously terrified of their lives from the anti-Semitic Ukrainians. [I was living there from October until May and only towards the end of my stay did the owner tell me the true history about that tunnel.]

Besides that I have to say that people always surprised me when I asked about the time of the USSR.I expected them to tell me how horrible it was during the time of that totalitarian system. They never said that. Their answer was always "It was better then than now." [Some would add: "Everyone worked." --meaning as opposed to then when things had fallen to bandits and open criminality.] 

a path that expands on the idea of the Gra to finish Shas to add to that to get through Physics and Metaphysics.

 I would like to suggest  that in all Litvak yeshivas even though the emphasis is on slow painstaking exact learning, still it is understood that in one's spare time he does get through Shas with Rashi and Tosphot. It is thought that no one has the right to any opinion in Torah thought until he has finished Shas at least once.

But that really is just the bare minimum. The actual idea of the Gra is to finish the two Talmuds and all the Midrashim, midrashei agada  and midrashei halaka. 

But add to that the idea of some of the Rishonim of the importance of Physics and Metaphysics, I would like to suggest these last two the the set that one ought to get through at least once. That is math up until Abstract Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Algebraic Geometry and Physics up until String Theory.

You can see this in the Gra himself who said what ever lack of knowledge one has in any of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred times more. [Intro to translation of Euclid by Rav Baruch of Shkolov a disciple of the Gra.]

[The Metaphysics that the Rishonim are referring to is the set of books by Aristotle of that name. But also to the wider set of Plato and Plotinus. I would have to add Kant to that list.]  

alternative math

 

the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

 The place in the LeM of Rav Nahman of Breslov where he discusses the Torah of the Realm of Evil in the vol I:30. [paragraph 8].

This is tied to the idea that one needs stubbornness to merit to true Torah. But there is a sort of stubbornness and arrogance of the Dark Side. So not everyone that claims to be teaching Torah  can be trusted or accepted since their Torah might be the Torah of the Sitra Achra. In fact, since we know from the Ari that the Dark Side is the majority rule in this world, so one ought to expect that most of those that claim to teach Torah are not from the Realm of Holiness. Rather they are probably teaching the Torah of the Dark Side.

According to the rules Rav Nahman gives there in that Torah lesson, it is clear that in place like the Mir and other Litvak yeshivas were there is humility, there is also true and authentic Torah. 

[You could go further into this subject by pointing out that not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah. The Rif [Rav Isaac Alfasi] explains in Sanhedrin chapter 11 "Helek" that when R.Akiva said one who reads outside books has no portion in the next world refers to books that explain the Torah but not according to midrashei chazal [ the explanations given in the Gemara and or midrashim. Some books would be OK like the books of Rav Nahman or the Or HaChaim since they are simply explaining the Torah based on the midrashim of the sages." So when it says, "Everything that even the smallest student offers" in way of explanation, that refers to explaining the Midrashim that explain the Torah. Not coming up with explanations of his own on Torah." So not everything that pretends to be Torah is Torah.]

According tp the criterion of Rav  Isaac Alfasi it would be hard to a kosher book among thee religious .They all make up commentaries not based on midrahei chazal.

 

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.