Even  though when I first got to Shar Yashuv [a great Litvak Yeshiva in NY], I did not have anything in mind except to learn Torah, once there and I got a taste of the greatness of Torah, I made it my goal to be sitting and learning Torah my whole life. Later events made that commitment to be difficult to keep. But I still believe in the greatness of that goal. [I had to go to NYU's Polytechnic Institute to learn Physics and thus the idea of sitting and learning Torah became impractical. But I imagine with enough commitment I might still have managed.] See the event with R. Yochanan and his friend that  decided to leave off learning Torah to go and make a living. R Yochanan heard the angels. One said to the other: Let us knock this wall over them [and kill them], since thy have decided to leave off learning Torah. The other said, "No. Leave them alone, because one of them will stick with it." R Yochanan heard, his friend did not.

A powerful lesson to be learned for sure. Still, I just was not able to sit and learn. The best I can say is that I consider Physics to be part of Torah based on Ibn Pakuda, the Rambam, even though clearly many [or most] Rishonim disagree.]  

I have tended to forget this important lesson of Rav Nahman so now when ever I got out I remind myself of it--to pay attention to the little hints.  [I totally forget where that is in the LeM but I vaguely think it is around vol I in the 60's,] 

There Rav Nahman says one should always remember that there is a next world and one way to do so is to be aware that God sends small hints every day to every person to remind him or her of what they need to understand. [But I noticed that for me, it might take a lot of hints until I get the idea.]

I have been looking at music files to share and here are a few  

mathematics mp3

[same piece in midi file form]

i69

l43 music file

 l8 midi

organ

I hope to receive   the energy to go back and edit  these last two. But I thought to share them anyway. 

e58 midi

I tried to defend the point of view of the Rambam concerning Aristotle.

 I had a conversation [with Sarah Chaya] in which I tried to defend the point of  view of the Rambam concerning Aristotle. My point was that even though the Rambam is  Neo Platonic [Plato, Plotinus, and Aristotle} there is a reason to look for modifications of that based on Kant and Fries. Mainly my point was that this the real world, the world of ideas  [not this world of shadows] is where real knowledge is. But to Kant that is where we have knowledge only within the conditions of possible experience. It is the idea of Fries that there is access even beyond that realm by means of immediate non intuitive knowledge. So we can have a relationship with God, but not by reason by by a different kind of knowledge not of reason, nor of feeling. A third kind. (The point is this is knowledge of God but not through reason nor any kind of sense perception or feelings.])

Of course we know that the Guide for the Perplexed was a scandal. No one liked the attitude of the Rambam towards a pagan philosopher. But the Ramban/Nahmanidess wrote an impassioned letter to the Baalai HaTosphot in France and Germany saying to leave the Rambam alone--even though the Ramban did not in fact agree with the Rambam about this issue. 

 No one I have ever tried to explain this to paid the slightest attention--but here I go again. The idea at the end of Laws of Shemita that, "when one who accepts on himself the yoke of Torah, the yoke of work is taken from him. " does not mean to make money by means of using Torah. It means that in some way God will provide. It is not a "heter" [license] to make Torah into a business.

There must become an iron wall between Torah and money.

Let's say that Rav Nahman was right that there is such a thing as תלמידי חכמים שדיים יהודאיים Torah scholars that are demons. They are especially set up to trick people into doing evil by means of supposedly teaching Torah. Then how does one guard oneself from them and also be sure not to become one himself? 

Obviously learning Torah is not an answer to this problem since that is the whole problem in the first place. And in the writings of Rav Nahman himself I do not recall any suggestion about this except for the only one in the LeM vol I perek 12.  There he explains the difference between a true Torah scholar and one who is from the Dark Side as being the difference of one who learns Torah for its own sake as opposed to those who learn for money and power. 

Now I know it is the custom to ignore the problem of using Torah to gain power and money , but I think the reason people minimize the problem is they do not realize the repercussions that are suggested y Rav Nahman. So as difficult of a solution it may be I think the only way to solve this problem is by ceasing to use Torah to make money. To simply stop the connection that exists that people that learn Torah think they will get support for doing so from the State or individual donors. There must become an iron wall between Torah and money. In this way the only people that will learn Torah will learn Torah for its own sake.

 When I first got to Shar Yashuv [a very important Litvak Yeshiva] I had seen a small booklet that was based on the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 76 about learning fast. [It was emphasizing going through many pages of Gemara every day--But not just that bit having a few sessions also in the Midrashim, and the Yerushalmi and Rif and Rosh etc.] But when I mentioned this to Motti Friefeld, he was emphatic about depth learning with lots of review. Especially the idea of ten times  review of everything one learns. [That idea he got from his father the Rosh Yeshiva Rav Freifeld. ]And I am beginning to see the wisdom in that idea of review.

 If you are doing a few Tosphot or a long piece in Rav Haim of Brisk or Rav Shach, I have found that reading through them straight and then again the next day and so on and so forth for about a month is a good idea. But When it comes to Gemara, there I found just plowing through the whole tractate with Rashi Tosphot and Maharsha seems best for me. As for the natural sciences, ten times review seems to work best, but only after I have gone though the whole textbook first just saying the words and then going in until the end.  Then going back and doing review