Robert E Lee.

 I have been thinking about Robert E Lee. And it occurred to me to mention a few ideas. One is a retraction. I think that when Stonewall Jackson died, Lee did not think the South was lost. 

Next as to secession, even though the tenth ammendment looks to some degree as allowing it, still there is some doubt because the idea that all rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal government are reserved for the states or to the people of the USA would mean any individual person could also secede from the Union.  So no one could be guilty of any crime because all he would need to say would be  "I secede from the Union." [Or you could argue that individuals are different than states for individuals are liable to punishment by the courts as brought in the Constitution. But there is no such mechanism for punishing states. Besides that, Virginia openly made the possibility of secession as a key condition for joining the Union in the first place.] 

Another point on the side of Lee is that the Constitution mentions citizens of the states and of the union itself. It seems one can be both! So Lee was right that he was a citizen of Virginia and thus bound by its laws--and its secession.

"It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87].

 I was at the nearby Breslov Na Nach place yesterday and some mentioned an idea  that kind of makes sense to me. At first I suggested the idea that is well known, "תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם" ("Learning Torah is equal to all the other mitzvot put together.") And this person is a working guy who as you can imagine finds it hard to be sitting and learning all day because of his responsibilities. He mentioned this idea of Rav Nahman of finding the good point in others and in oneself. And that situations with people often change so that sitting and learning is not always possible.

[He did not mention another idea of Rav Nahman but which I think is relevant here that, "It is possible to find God in everything." [LeM II: 44 and also I think II:87]. And this applies to me since I also have found that my goal of sitting and learning Torah just did not work out as well as I thought. 

The idea is brought at greater length in the LeM [of Rav Nahman] in a few other places that is based on the mishna in Pirkei Avot בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם with ten statements the world was created. Nine of them are open and plain to see "God said..." [and in everything created by these nine statements the glory of God is revealed. ] But the tenth statement is hidden. It does not say "God said.." , rather just "In the beginning God created...". That is called the "Hidden Statement." Now even though it says "the whole world is full of his glory" still there are places where the glory of God does not reach as it says וכבודי לאחר לא אתן "I will not give of my glory to another".[The speaker in that verse is God]. But nothing can exist without the will of God to make it exist. So how do evil things and places have existence? That is by the hidden statement. So even when one has fallen into evil and evil places and from there one seeks God and tries to return to Him, then the glory of the hidden statement is revealed upon him.

[There is more to be discussed here, but I just got back from the sea and I would like to spend my time learning. So it is best for anyone reading this just to see in the LeM of Rav Nahman some of the places that are relevant to this like the LeM II:4.]

Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty.

 It is a proven fact that democracy and prosperity go together. And it has been proven that socialism and repression, and poverty go together hand in hand.

 \Why is this? The question of "Why?"" never bothered me much since I assumed that no matter how brilliant a system may be conceived --if its end result is million of dead and an equality of poverty, then that system can not be right. [I mean what should it matter to a poor person in the USA the lives better than medieval kings? Capitalism lifts everyone out of poverty. The poorest of the poor in the USA have I phones and Nikes shoes and electricity and sanitation that medial kings could not have dreamed of.]

Even China never got out of poverty until it embraced a market economy, but with the control of the party that retains political control.--not market control.

[And I admit I can not see the attraction of Communism today. All one has to do is the compare a picture of any ordinary grocery store in the USA, with a picture of street block long lines in the USSR just to get a loaf of bread.]

Bikini Nuclear tests.

 Since I have not been able to spend much time on learning Torah --though I should overcome the difficulties. But in the meantime I wanted to mention my feeling the Bikini Nuclear tests. The people on those islands were evacuated but later brought back and assured that it was safe to return. They were test mice to see the effects of radiation poisoning. So if you think medical scientists would never use people are guinea pigs, think again. And that brings me to the non existent epidemic to cause people to take tests drugs (called by euphemism "vaccines.)  [Do yourself a bit of reading to understand the many years it takes to develop a real vaccine. There is no question that these are fakes.]

See the Conversations of Rav Nahman (Sichot HaRan) [of Breslov]. [paragraph 50.]

And I might mention that Dr Michael Huemer in one paper deals with the problems of political activists and all other sorts of people like doctors that think they they know more than they do. [In the named 

In Praise of Passivity

by Michael Huemer

 Political actors, including voters, activists, and leaders, are often ignorant of basic facts relevant to policy choices. Even experts have little understanding of the working of society and little ability to predict future outcomes. Only the most simple and uncontroversial political claims can be counted on. This is partly because political knowledge is very difficult to attain, and partly because individuals are not sufficiently motivated to attain it. As a result, the best advice for political actors is very often to simply stop trying to solve social problems, since interventions not based on precise understanding are likely to do more harm than good.

]

pure Litvak Yeshiva approach

 My own experience with the Mir Yeshiva in NY was not very long. And it is sad that I did not have an appreciation for it as much as I should have had. I was just three short years. I did not have a great understanding at the time of the Gra and the herem he signed on. But I did have some grasp of the amazing world of true authentic Torah.

And I do not think I am alone in this. Many people do not really get why the Gra signed on the letter of excommunication. I guess the problem of idol worship does not occur to people to be  a problem.

I could make a suggestion concerning the מנהל רוחני [the person more or less appointed to give the Musar talks.] They do not tend to be as admirable as the rosh yeshiva. They tend to not be able to give the deep sorts of classes that a rosh yeshiva is expected to give.[Along the lines of R. Akiva Eigger or Rav Chaim of Brisk]--or at least to be able to give over the idea of Rav Chaim and the other greats --e.g. Shimon Shkopf, Rav Shach, etc. But neither are they very well versed in Musar itself. They may have learned some Musar, but are usually unaware of the philosophical aspects of Musar. [an example would be the Chovot Levavot which is openly neo-Platonic.]  Or take the Ramchal--certainly a great mystic and there is some hint of this in the Mesilat Yesharim. But the teachers of Musar are often not very well versed in that area either. 

While at the Mir it was easy for me to see the greatness of the roshei yeshiva--in character and in deep understanding of the Gemara and Tosphot. But since I left there, I have never seen anyone that comes within light years of that. [ That is one reason I named this blog after Rav Shach--to give people an idea of an example of deep penetrating analysis of Gemara really means.

[That is not to say there is a case for the pure Litvak Yeshiva approach or even for the Gra alone per se. Rather Balance. Balance is the path of my parents. And one ought to not look at the Reform movement or the Zionist movement as aberration that are unexplainable except as the result of apikorsim heretics,- but rather as a natural result of pressure-the pressure of the insanity of fanatic religious leaders.

 Even with people doing good work in understanding Kant (like Paul Wolff), you still end up with the problem that this approach  has kinks that just do not seem to go away.  You could at that point look at Schelling or Fichte which are not Kantian at all, or you could take the Fries approach which is a modification of Kant. [It is not psychologism-using the mind to explain none mind based facts.]

Or you could take the Hegel approach. But that approach is certainly not to the liking of any Kantians. And at lot there depends on which initial texts one takes. For some reason I read the Logic [that part of the Encyclopedia] first and that fit completely into my understanding of Plato and Plotinus. [Ever since then I have never understood the complaints about Hegel.]  

And you could combine both. After all Hegel is mainly interested in building his Metaphysical system. he does not care about the Mind Body Problem. While Kant [and Fries] are involved in that very much so-- in answering Berkeley and Hume.   

[Incidentally, the Fries approach needed a certain amount of development. Leonard Nelson added a bit of clarity to it [as mentioned in Dr Kelley Ross's web site]. But even more so--the Friesian School of Nelson could not deal with the Special Theory of Relativity and even less with the General Theory of Relativity. That includes Nelson himself and all those who followed him until Gretta Hermann.]

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor.

There is an obligation to leave the edge of the field for the poor. That is not to touch it at all. This is called "peah". The amount one must leave is 1/60. 

That left over part is not obligated in the presents given to the priest or the Levite [called truma and maasar.]

Let's say however one just goes ahead and reaps the whole field. The second that he jumped the line and cut down the first stalk of the 1/60 the obligation of peah goes over to  the sheaves. Some part of the sheaves he has to leave as peah so as to get up to 1/60 of the whole field.

But what happens to the first stalk of that started the process in the first place? and what happens to the second stalk of the 1/60 part that was the beginning of the transgression of the  לא תכלה "Do not finish harvesting your field, but leave the corner of your field to the poor." Well the second he harvested that stalk, he transgressed that prohibition. So the questions are is the very first stalk still obligated in truma. (For at first it was obligated in truma since it is not "left over". But now all the reaped field is liable to be peah. Does that include the first stalk? And the difference is what is obligated in truma  is called "tevel". Grain that has not had the presents to the priest and Levite separated rom it and thus forbidden to be eaten.) And what about the second stalk? Is it obligated in truma? For at first it was supposed to be peah. But the second he cuts it the obligation of peah goes over to the sheaves--but now it also is sheaf!! And it is peah? So which one is it?