Most secular studies are bitul Torah.

 Most secular studies are bitul Torah. As for the issue of making a living, Rav Shach said one should learn Torah until one is married, and then just take whatever job presents itself. [But Physics and Math would be considered as a part of learning Torah according to the Rambam in the Mishna Torah where he says one should divide the day into three: the Written Law, The Oral Law, and the Gemara- and he adds the subjects he brought in the first four chapters of Mishna Torah are in the category of Gemara] [The Rambam and Ibn Pakuda  also hold this idea with Metaphysics. What Ibn Pakuda means is clear--right there on the first page of the Chovot Levavot. But later on Metaphysics went beyond Plato and Aristotle to include Kant and Hegel. 

Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman of Breslov got to Israel. The disciples of the Gra were the people that extended hospitality to him.

 Rav Nathan, the disciple of Rav Nahman of Breslov got to Israel. The first place he visited was Safed. The disciples of the Gra were the people that extended hospitality to him. These were not simply Litvaks. They were the actual disciples of the Gra. See "The Days of Rav Natan " vol II, paragraph 134.  It is hard to know if Rav Natan was aware of this.  The head of that group in Safed was Rav Israel of Shkolev and he was a direct disciple of the Gra.

 Another interesting fact about Rav Nathan. On his way to Israel he was cheated by someone who was supposedly helping him get a ticket. And his trip was delayed because of this. Then after R. Natan became aware of this he said something so characteristic of the Litvak mentality I can not refrain from writing it down. על הכסף אני מוחל לך אבל על הביטול תורה שגרמת לי איני מוחל  ובוודאי השם ישלם לך לפי גמולך  ימי מוהרנ''ת For the money I forgive you. But for the Bitul Torah that you caused to me I do not forgive you. [That is for the time I could have been learning Torah but was wasted because of you, I do not forgive you]

  People will always look for prior events in someone's life to explain why they turned to crime.   Yet as any parent will tell you--kids are different from the very first day they are born.  Maybe some of that is DNA. Maybe some of it is from the the inborn soul. [In modern idiotic thought, the soul is non existent. This is due to a very unscientific idea called "scientism" that only what science knows is true. And that view is the opposite of science which assumes that we do not know, and tries to find out what we do not know. Science itself does not assume it is all knowing.  So on one hand, I can see why the Left tries to create a situation in which there is no hierarchy. Everyone has the same amount of stuff- so that their external experiences will all be the same. {Thus "equality"  in the amount of stuff is the goal of Leftists.} Still this disagrees with the inherent differences in DNA and in the soul. And it ignores lobsters which also have a hierarchy as Jordan Peterson points out. [as do all mammals] The hierarchy of lobsters does not come from capitalism. And Communism did not get rid of hierarchies and who would be on top and then second to that etc. Trotsky found out the hard way that Communism did not get rid of hierarchy. He had a simple word to say for him to be the top. He was the leader of the Petrograd Soviet. And that was the top soviet in the USSR and was offered the top job. [He was offered by Lenin to be to leader of the USSR.] He declined because he believed the only hierarchy should be the working people as opposed to the welfare recipients. [i.e the non workers]. He di not think anyone should be on top\except the Central Committee.

The Communist ideal did not lead to an increase in prosperity and freedom which were its stated goals. [This is in spite of the fact that many people in czarist Russia wanted stability before freedom  and prosperity which is why they supported the Bolsheviks] 

אבי עזרי הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט'

  רב שך asks on the גר''א. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that רב שך had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The basic issue is this: The  שלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג ס''ק י''א brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a שטר and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion holds he can not change his mind about the שטר. [The previous opinion was that he could change his mind]. The גר''א in his notes there ס''ק י''ד brings the source of this alternate opinion from גיטין פרק ג. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her גט even though it has not been written yet.  The questions are these: אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of  something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the גר''א brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension של her יד. She is not now causing the גט to be possessed. The answer  I believe starts with the observation that the שליח קבלה is not a general messenger, but rather specifically for  גט which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the גר''א comes from the very idea that רב שך brings in that law in הלכות גיטין פרק ב' הלכה ט. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a גט and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the גט. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the שלחן ערוך חושן משפט רמ''ג and also in the law that the גר''א brings. When one says write a שטר and by it  קונה my field, he is not making them specially agents for the writing, but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the גר''א brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific גט but rather any שטר that causes her to become divorced.

רב שך שואל על הגר''א. הנושא  הוא זה:  השלחן ערוך חושן משפט פרק רמ''ג סעיף י''א מביא דעה כזו. המקרה הוא אחד אומר לשני אנשים כתבו שטר ובאמצעותו  תקנו את השדה שלי ["כתבו שטר וזכו בו"]. הדעה החלופית הזו גורסת שהוא לא יכול לשנות את דעתו לגבי המסמך. [הדעה הקודמת הייתה שהוא יכול לשנות את דעתו]. הגר''א בהערותיו שם ס''ק י''ד מביא את מקור הדעה החלופית הזו מגיטין ריש פרק התקבל שאישה תוכל לעשות שליח לקבל את הגט שלה למרות שזה עדיין לא נכתב. השאלות הן אלה: אדם אינו יכול לגרום קניין [לגרום להחזקה או להחזיק] בדבר שטרם נכנס לעולם. והמקור שהגר''א מביא לכך אינו עונה על הקושי הזה כיוון שהאישה עושה שליח שהוא הרחבה של יד שלה. היא לא גורמת כעת לרכוש את הגט. התשובה מתחילה בהתבוננות שהשליח קבלה אינו שליח כללי אלא דווקא עבור גט שטרם הגיע לעולם. אבל זו רק ההתחלה של התשובה. התשובה הכוללת לגר''א באה מעצם הרעיון שרב שך מביא את בהלכות גיטין פרק ג' הלכה ט'. זה המקרה שבו אדם אומר לשני אנשים לכתוב גט ולתת אותו לאשתו. במקרה זה הוא הופך אותם לשליחים על תהליך הגירושין הכולל, לא במיוחד על כתיבת הגט. זה בדיוק אותו דבר באותה דעה שלחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן רמ''ג סעיף י''א וגם בחוק שהגר''א מביא בס''ק י''ד. כאשר אחד אומר "לכתוב שטר ועל ידי השטר לרכוש את השדה שלי"(כתבו שטר וזכו בו), הוא לא גורם להם להיות לסוכנים במיוחד לכתיבה, אלא רוכשים. וזה אותו דבר לגבי החוק שהגר''א מביא. היא לא הופכת אותה לסוכנת שתקבל את הגט הספציפי הזה, אלא כל שטר שגורם לה להתגרש.

Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזריin the Avi Ezri Gitin perek 2 laws 8 and 9.

 Rav Shach asks on the Gra. I was at the sea and contemplating this question and it occurred to me a surprising thing that Rav Shach had a ready made answer to this question which he had just stated before! The  issue is this: The Shulchan Aruch [Choshen Mishpat 241 paragraph 11 ]brings a "some say". The case is one says to two people write a document and by it take possession of my field. This alternate opinion hold he can not change his mind about the document. [The previous opinion was that he could].

The Gra in his notes there brings the source of this alternate opinion from Gitin [פרק התקבל]. That a woman can make a messenger to receive her divorce doc even though it has not be written yet.   

The questions are these: a person can not cause possession [cause to be possessed or to possess] of  something that has not yet entered into this world. And the source that the Gra brings for this does not seem to answer this difficulty since the woman is making a messenger which is an extension o her had. She is not now causing the divorce doc to be possessed.

The answer  I believe starts with the observation that the messenger is not a general messenger but rather specifically for that divorce doc --which has not yet come into the world. But that is just the beginning of the answer. The total answer to the Gra comes from the very idea that Rav Shach brings in that law in אבי עזרי Avi Ezri Laws of Gitin perek 2 law 8 and 9. That is the case where a man says to two people to write a divorce doc and give it to his wife. In this case he is making them messengers on the total divorce process, not specially on the writing of the divorce. This is exactly the same thing in that opinion in the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 243 and also in the law that the Gra brings. When one says write a doc and by it cause so and so to posses my field he is not making them specially agents for the writing but rather agents to cause possession. And that is the same thing with the law the Gra brings. She is not making her an agent to receive that specific doc but rather any doc that causes her to become divorced.

the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot

 One thing is clear -that the only places one finds people sitting and learning Torah for its own sake is in Litvak Yeshivot. It is a curious fact that only people that walk in the path of the Gra have the "heshek" driving desire to learn Torah for no other motive than for itself, not even for the reward of the next world.

{I believe this fact deserves wide spread attention because it is extremely significant. It is obvious to anyone who has stepped for one second into any Litvak Yeshiva, but some people have not and so this fact deserves to be general knowledge.--Even for people like myself who are not up to the level of learning and keeping Torah as we should, at least we ought to know what real authentic Torah is.] 

But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.

It was mentioned to me recently the problem of totalitarianism. In answer to this I mentioned the very strange occurrence of Freedom and Justice for All, limited government, and  balance of powers from the English kings who were tyrants in every single possible meaning of that word. How in the world did limited government happen to come into existence under the signature of King John? The Magna Carta. And the provisions of Oxford under Henry III? I have been contemplating this enigma for a long time but have not written about it because it comes under the category of problems in the human situation which seems to be  mysterious. [The dinge an sich of Kant] Or as Michael Huemer puts it, "Why are people irrational about politics?" [Though they defend their beliefs based on some kind of "rational"] How s it then than from that arose the Constitution of the USA? Or the Parliamentary system of England?

If anything, England is the last place on the planet that one would expect limited government to arise from.

[I mean to say that after reading a bit of Kant  and the Friesian School I do not wonder much about issues that I think are beyond human or even pure reason.  I figure once one gets out of the limits of possible experience, reason tends to begin to contradict itself. Even though government is something that people do experience, still it is not possible to know what is best based on experience. You can not derive an is from an ought. Issues of value and morality might be related to how things are, but are not derivable from them.

[I think it is a good idea to learn the development of the English and American system of government in order to gain a clear idea of their essence--what government can not do. Limits on Federal powers. What they can not force you to learn, what they can not force you to pay for, for what they can not force you to say , etc. a long and infinite list of all the things the government can not do. Why is that? Because Federal government has limited and openly stated powers. Anything outside of that very short list is off limits to the government. But when is limited government good? When it does not bring anarchy. So in England, they never got rid of the office of king. They had experienced anarchy enough to know that the worst government is better than the best anarchy.