If you think of a woman that sees blood once and then again between the 8th and 18th day as a Zava [who requires seven clean days] as opposed to s regular woman who sees for few days and then not again until after 30 days, then can an ocean purify her? Well this is an argument between the tenaim [sages of the Mishna].

Do you consider her as a zava? That is so to most Rishonim, but not to the Rambam who thinks there is a continuous cycle of  18. Once any girls sees even one time, the 18 cycle begins. And so any woman that sees even once might be a small zava. Then if she see three days she is a great zava who needs a flowing spring. Do rivers fed from springs count as springs? This seems to me from what I recall to be an argument between the Raavad and Rambam. [That is an argument as to the status of most rivers. To the mishna only four in Israel are not valid but all other rivers have the status of a spring.

[But if you go with most Rishonim including the Raavad most women that see blood are only nidot, not zavot so any body of natural water is Ok, e.g.,  a sea or river  

[I know I am being short here. So just for information's sake: In the book of Leviticus you see a difference between a woman who sees blood and a woman who sees blood "not in her time". The one that sees not in her time needs "living waters" to get pure. That is a spring. So what is ""Not in her time". Well the simple idea would be seeing her regular time up to seven days. That is if she sees one day or two or three etc up until seven, she simply goes into a sea or river after the seventh day [or even during the seventh day if she has already stopped seeing.] But if she sees again on three consecutive days after the seventh day, then that is "not in her time". She needs then to count seven clean days and go into a spring [or river fed from springs] and bring a sacrifice [once there will be a Temple]

 To learn fast [saying the words and going on] or slow [with review]? I had seen the fast way in the Musar book אורחות צדיקים Ways of the Righteous and also in some book [בניין עולם] in Shar Yashuv. [Note1] But in Shar Yashuv itself there was [as in all yeshivot based on the Gra] an emphasis on slow painstaking review.

[There was recommended to review everything you learn ten times] 

At the time, I came up with a sort of middle path or review twice. But over the years, I have found there are places where the fast sort of learning seems to work best--I mean absolutely fast. And there are places where review is the only thing that works. 

The places where fast is the best is where review does not seem to work at all. I am sorry to admit it, but an example is higher mathematics. Places like that where review does nothing (since it is like a vertical structure), there I need to get the whole picture before I can understand even the slightest detail.

Places where review seems best are in Tosphot or books of Rav Chaim of Brisk or Rav Shach. These are places that are deep and profound, but do not depend on extensive knowledge elsewhere. That is to say--they make sense in their own place--if you spend enough time on them.

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics.

In some Rishonim like Ibn Pakuda [חובות הלבבות], Binyamin the Doctor [author of מעלות המידות] and the Rambam we find an emphasis on Physics and Meta-Physics. [And they mean these subjects as understood by the ancient Greeks as the Rambam states openly in the Introduction to the Guide.] So what is included in these? I think Physics is clear. But Metaphysics is less clear. Certainly as the Rishonim understood these include Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus. But what of later authors? I suggest Kant, Hegel, Leonard Nelson.

 [I know that there is an argument between the Kant Fries School of Leonard Nelson and Hegel, and I have no resolution to this problem. Both schools of thought have some important points.]

The basic way that one can resolve the approach of Jacob Fries with Hegel is that of dynamics. While to Fries there is an exact limit to reason that never change, and to Hegel there is no such limit, one can see that this limit can expand. [It can be dynamic. It moves.] 

 The problem with social justice theories is when implemented result in their exact opposite. The death toll of communist's regimes in the 20th century go above 100 million..[just counting the USSR and China. That ought to put some kind of damper on the enthusiasm these theories. The proof is in the pudding.  And no matter how well thought out a theory is, if it predicts results [prosperity and peace for all] -that turn out to be contrary to its predictions--that theory is false.

But this applies to religious delusions also. The allure of the religious world is their claim of peace and justice for all which is the opposite of the truth. 

The further one gets into areas of numinous content [powerful spiritual presence] like music, art, justice, spiritual values, the less concepts of pure reason are applicable. See Kant (and the Kant-Friesian School). The issue is this there is analytic knowledge which is true by definitions; and synthetic knowledge e.g. there is a continent between Asia and Europe.. There is also a priori knowledge (known, but not by the senses) and a posteriori knowledge known by observation . So can a priori synthetic knowledge  exist? Kant shows how, but only within a certain limit. That limit is "the conditions of possible experience".So when people try to show by pure reason principles things are can not be observed by the five senses and not within the area of possible experience, then you know they are getting into an area where reason not only is invalid,  but is also destructive.]  

 It is not known if the Gra agreed with the establishment of an institution "yeshiva" as independent from the local Rav and community. {That is something like a corporation.] For the most part, all you had was the local place where people prayed in the morning and then who ever wanted to just stayed and learned there during the day.

When Rav Chaim of Voloshin asked the Gra about starting such an independent institution as a yeshiva the Gra did not answer at first. Then there are several accounts. Some say that he agreed in the end. Others say he never agreed.

To me this shows a basic ambiguity about the whole issue. Certainly, Torah was never meant to be a means to get a kollel pay check. On the other hand, I had been part of two very great Litvak yeshivot Shar Yashuv and the Mir in NY.   In Shar Yashuv I learned about the great importance of reviewing everything you learn ten times.

So it is hard to know. Maybe the connection between Torah and Money nowadays has just gotten too out of hand.

[I do not know if it matters to others, but perhaps a bit of personal information might be helpful. I had a great time in Shar Yashuv and learned from Naphtali Yeager about the infinite depths of Tosphot. But after that I went to the Mir where the learning was more along the lines of Rav Haim of Brisk. ] 

signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. It is customary to ignore the Gra's signature on the document of the herem but because of this ignoring the fact has caused the religious world to descend into its present state of insanity.

 The problem that Rav Nahman brings in the Le.M  [volume I chapters 12, 28] about תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים "Torah scholars that are demons" would not resonate so strongly with me if not for the fact of personal experience. The issue is there are plenty of these sort of Torah scholars that can "talk the talk" and say all the right words and verbiage, but when it comes to action, they do as much damage to us simple people as they can. I was not aware of the presence of these teachers of righteousness that are internally demons until I experienced their damage on my own self and family. And so I knock myself every day that I did not heed the warning of the Gra concerning this difficulty.

So what does this mean for other simple people? Not to avoid Torah which is holy and important. Rather to heed the signature of the Gra on the letter of excommunication. Not because we are so religious, but rather because of self preservation.

[I wish I could walk in the path of the Gra--straight learning and keeping Torah. But at least this important point of the Gra I think should be heeded. And furthermore, even if one thinks that the herem was by mistake, it still is valid since a herem/excommunication has the same category as קונמות--נדרים vows. That is one can say about an animal "This is to be a sacrifice" and that is valid regardless of  his reasons for doing so. So it us in the case of the excommunication. It is valid no matter if people accept it or not. 

I need to do here that Rav Nahman was not included in the Herem signed by the Gra. This you can see by looking at the actual language of the document. 

It is customary to ignore the Gra's signature  on the document of the herem but because of this ignoring the fact has caused the religious world to descend into its present state of insanity.

 z62 midi file  z62 nwc