I noticed in the writings of Dr. Kelley Ross [Friesian ] that he believes that Hegel held from a sort of phenomenalism-  the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli]. I can see that  even strong supports of Hegel like McTaggart held this way. But I have never been able to see Hegel in that way and in support of my view I would like to say that this is exactly how Cunningham explains Hegel in his PhD thesis. [Thought and Reality in Hegel's System. GUSTAVUS Cunningham.]\Rather I think that Hegel is thinking of Being as emanating from Logos. Not being identical. This would be like Plotinus. And this aspect of Hegel I have thought to be so for  long time-and also this aspect of Plotinus in that he holds like Aristotle in some particular ways. And in this very discussion I think Hegel holds like Aristotle that universals [the categories of thought] can not exist without  particulars. And visa versa. See chapter III in Cunningham to see many examples of Hegel's saying so openly. Not that particulars have no existence outside of thought. 

Flour and sugar and oil are all necessary for a cake to exist. But they are not a cake. Only a cake is a cake.

רב שך עונה מדוע איננו לומדים מסוטה [הלכות סוטה פרק א']

 רב שך עונה מדוע איננו לומדים מסוטה [הלכות סוטה פרק א'] לומר אפילו ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים טהור אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. שאלתי את התשובה שלו לפני כמה ימים וחשבתי היום ששאלתי מבוססת על אי הבנה של מה שאמר רב שך. מה שהוא אומר זה. אם היינו לומדים מסוטה לרשות הרבים, אז למעשה אפילו דברים שיש להם חזקת טומאה יהיו טהורים. זה יהיה בגלל גזירת הכתוב. אבל למעשה אנו לומדים רק מסוטה לספק טומאה ברשות היחיד כי ספק נחשב למוחלט.] וזה מסביר את הגמרא שאחרת קשה להבין. הגמרא אומר שחכמים לומדים מסוטה לומר ספק של טומאה ברשות היחיד הוא בהחלט טמא. ואז הוא שואל, אז למה לא ללמוד מסוטה ברשות הרבים. תשובה: המקוה אינו דומה לסוטה. המקוה הוא ספק בגלל חוסר נפח. השאלה אינה קשורה לרשות היחיד או לרשות הרבים. הספק לגבי הסוטה הוא בגלל היותה לבד עם גבר ברשות היחיד. אין סתירה ברשות הרבים. ואז הגמרא שואלת, אבל למרות זאת לא כך שכל ספק לגבי טומאה ברשות הרבים הוא טהור? תשובה: מדובר במקרה של שני דברים שדוחפים לעבר טומאה. חזקת טמא של אובייקט עד שהוא נעשה טהור, או האדם המטפל בחפץ. בנוסף חזקת השתא של המקוה שנמדד ונמצא כי הוא חסר ארבעים סאה. קשה מאוד להבין את הגמרא הזו. בהתחלה הוא אומר שהסיבה שמקוה שנמדד ונמצא חסר כל הטהרות שנעשו על גביו טמאות  היא מכיוון שאנו לומדים מסוטה. ואז נראה שהוא משנה את דעתו ואומר שהסיבה היא כי שני חזקות נגד אחת. אולם כעת אנו מבינים את הגמרא בצורה מושלמת מכיוון שהיא לא לומדת מסוטה על שום דבר ברשות הרבים. רק רשות היחיד. באשר לרשות הרבים אנו לא לומדים דבר מהסוטה כלל. הדברים ברשות הרבים וזה יכלול את סוטה אם אין להם בכלל חזקה קודמת לא טהור או לא טמא יהיו כמו שהם. אבל אם למשהו יהיה חזקה של להיותו טמא זה יהיה טמא.

 רב שך means to answer why we do not learn from סוטה [laws of סוטה פרק א ] to say even ספק טומאה  ברשות הרבים טהור אפילו כנגד חזקת טומאה. I asked on his answer a few days ago and it occurred to me today that my question was based on a misunderstanding of what רב שך was saying. What he is saying is this. If we would learn from a סוטה to a רשות הרבים then in fact even ספק טומאה בשביל things that have a חזקת טומאה would be טהור. It would be because of גזירת הכתוב. But in fact we don't. We only learn from סוטה in a  רשות היחיד that a doubt is considered to  be definite.] And THIS explains the גמרא that otherwise is hard to understand. The גמרא says the חכמים learn from סוטה to say a doubt of טומאה in a רשות היחיד is definitely טמא. Then it asks, then why not learn from סוטה in a רשות הרבים. Answer: the מקוה is not like a סוטה. The מקוה is a doubt because of the volume. The question about volume is not connected with a private or רשות הרבים. The doubt about the סוטה is because of being alone with a man in a  רשות היחיד. There is no סתירה in a רשות הרבים. Then the גמרא asks but even so is it not so that every doubt about טומאה  a רשות הרבים is pure? Answer: it is a case of two things pushing towards uncleanliness. The חזקת טמא of an object עד it has been made clean, or the person that is handling  the object. Plus the חזקת השתא of the מקוה which was measured and found to be lacking ארבעים סאה. This גמרא is very hard to understand. At first it says the reason the doubt for the מקוה is unclean is because we learn from סוטה. Then it seems to change its mind and says  the reason is because two חזקות against one. Now however we understand the גמרא perfectly because it is not learning from סוטה about anything in a רשות הרבים. Only the  רשות היחיד. As for the רשות הרבים we learn nothing from סוטה at all. Things are clean in a רשות הרבים and that would include סוטה if they have no prior חזקה at all. Not טהור or unclean. But if anything would have a חזקה of being unclean it would be טמא.

 Rav Shach means to answer why we do not learn from Sota [laws of Sota perek I ] to say even a doubt about things [if they are clean or not] are clean in a public domain. I asked on his answer a few days ago, and it occurred to me today that my question was based on a misunderstanding of what Rav Shach was saying. What he is saying is this. If we would learn from a sota to a public domain, then in fact even things that have a prior status of being unclean would be clean. It would be because of gezerat hakatuv. But in fact we don't. We only learn from sota in a  private domain that a doubt is considered to  be definite.] And this explains the Gemara that otherwise is hard to understand. The Gemara says the sages learn from Sota to say a doubt of uncleanliness in a private domain is definitely unclean. Then it asks then why not learn from Sota in a public domain. [i.e.the sages hold a mikve that was measure and found lacking the right volume, all things made on it whether in a public or private domain are unclean.-So the question is why not say in a public domain they are clean?] Answer: the mikve is not like a sota. The mikve is a doubt because of the volume. The question about volume is not connected with a private or public domain. The doubt about the sota is because of being alone with a man in a private domain. There is no privacy in a public domain. Then the gemara asks but even so is it not so that every doubt about cleanliness  a public domain is pure/ Answer it is a case of two things pushing towards uncleanliness. The status of uncleanliness of an object because it has been made clean--or or the person that is handling  the object. Plus the present status of the mikve which was measured and found to be lacking the proper volume. This gemara is very hard to understand. At first it says the reason the doubt for the mikve is unclean is because we learn from Sota. Then it seems to change its mind and says  the reason is because two hazakot against one. Now however we understand the gemara perfectly because it is not learning from sota about anything in a public domain. Only the private domain. As for the public domain we learn nothing from sota at all. Things are clean in a public domain and that would include sota if they have no prior hazaka at all. Not one clean or unclean. But if anything would have a hazaka of being unclean it would be unclean.

_________________________________________________

 There is a sort of question on the whole principle of democracy. It is this Stalin was mourned by the entire USSR at his passing.  If almost in every home there had been one person arrested and sent off into the darkness of the night by the NKVD, then why did people mourn at his passing? You would imagine they would have rejoiced. The reason is that people opinions have no relationship with truth.

Whom so ever controls the press and popular media controls people's opinions. And who controls the newspapers and TV do not have any particular dibs on truth--that is knowledge of the way things really are.

 Learning in depth is the major idea of Litvak yeshivot. The three great Litvak yeshivot in NY were known for this. Chaim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat. Also in Israel there is Ponovitch.  I think in depth learning depends on one's mind, or on having a learning partner with that kind of mind. I saw this when I was learning with my learning partner in Uman, David Bronson. He would almost effortlessly see the depths in Tosphot without blinking an eyelash. This had nothing to do with bekiut -- since, in fact, he had not gone through most of Shas by that point. It was all simply being able to see the depths of the Gemara and Tosphot. 

So what does that mean for someone like me? Well, it means if seeing this sort of depth in Gemara and Tosphot does not come so naturally, we must spend much more time on review. 

I admit, I was never able get to this sort of depth while in Shar Yashuv, nor in the Mir. This is the case even though I was exposed to this sort of very depth learning in both places. [I was in the classes of Rav Shmuel Berenbaum aninto the d the other roshei yeshiva], I simply never got the idea. [For myself I simply learned the Tosphot, Maharsha, Pnei Yehoshua and other achronim.] Only later, when I was learning with David Bronson (and saw this sort of depth come naturally to him) did I begin to see the idea. You can see this sort of thing in my little booklet on Shas [which has some accounts of David's approach but also after learning with him and sort of getting the idea --my own expansion of that kind of depth.] Here:    Or better yet look at Rav Chaim of Brisk's Chidushei HaRambam or Rav Shach's Avi Ezri.

[The point is in Torah : to get it right is the main thing.  

of course in all major litvak yeshivot the slow in depth learning is for the morning and the fast bekiut is for the afternoon. but for me there are certain kinds of learning that work only one way, not the other. for example--gemara, i can not get the gemara and tosphot at all without slow painstaking digging in depth. math and physics are just the opposite--i cannot understand a word until i have read the whole book saying the words in order from beginning to end at least four times.  in mathematics--going over what i do not understand does nothing to help me understand. i have to go through the whole book at least four times and then it starts to make sense to me. [see gemara avoda zara pg 19 and the musar book ways of the righteous and conversations of rav nahman 76]

 The whole situation with the Bolsheviks is hard to judge. But after being in Iskara Lenina Street in Uman for some time the owner revealed to me the source of the long underground tunnel that stretched  from the river [where the house was] to the main street. That was about a mile of digging through the ground in Uman.   That tunnel  had been dug by the Jewish family that had owned that home during the time of Nicholas II. In other words--those pogroms were no joke. That Jewish family was terrified for their lives. They needed an escape route in case [or rather "when"] they were attacked at night. [I actually know exactly what that means. So while communism in the West seems like a terrible mistake, --I can see how it was important in the USSR. I can not really explain this except to say that a proper form of government seems to depend a lot on the DNA of the people. No one is equal to any other person. All men were created unequal. Some are bandits. Some are liars. Some are saints. To create some sort of safety and stability in those areas around Russia, it is clear that only the Bolsheviks were capable of doing so. Nicholas II while having certainly good intensions, still was sending millions to die in WWI for  some reason that no one can figure out until this very day. Was there some military objective? If so what was it? No one knows.