I will make your faith known with my mouth.אודיע אמונתך בפי האמונה תולה בפיו של אדם ועל-ידי  דבורי פיו יכול לבוא לאמונה Rav Nahman in the LeM II: 44 brings this verse and then says that "Faith depends on one's words and by means of one's words he can come to faith." He put a lot of emphasis on what one says. And also על ידי אמצעות הדיבור יכולים לבוא לתבונות התורה לעומקה By means of the word one can come to understandings of theTorah-to its very depth.

So not just faith, but understanding also come from one's words. I think this can be applied to the natural sciences, as well. 

I am being short. But my basic point is the talented people in the natural sciences do not need to be told  how to do their learning. But what about the rest of us? Should we be ignorant of  Physics, Math, Chemistry Biology? But the "Division of labor" costs us this. We think we do not need it because others can do it. And even if we want, the idea of just saying the words and going on sounds ridiculous. So people end up not knowing anything about the natural sciences at all. 

So I suggest that all the above is a mistake. We see in some  Rishonim that knowledge of the natural sciences is a part of the commandment "to learn Torah," [but not all Rishonim]. Plus I hold that this way of learning by saying the words and going on does work. 

You see in the Gra there is an obligation to know all the Seven Wisdoms, and the lack of knowledge in any one of them results in alack of understanding on Torah--a hundred times more.

[However, I combine it with review by going up to a certain point and then going back page by page to the beginning. And then at that point go back to the place I stopped and going a few more pages forward. And then review again back to the beginning.

[Also I should add that I heard in Shar Yashuv the importance of taking some chapter and doing review on it ten times. This might have originated with Rav Hutner. Why do I say this? Because in the Mir I had heard the same thing about the local store owner that had finished chapter 3 in Shabat ten  times.

I might add that while at Polytechnic Institute of NYU, I used to say the words of my lessons forwards and backwards and used that method for a few years. That is in the Physics or Mathematics text, I would say the whole forward and backwards and that included the exercises. 

Tosphot is always right.

  You can see the point of תוספות in his argument against ר' חננאל [בבא בתרא דף כ''ו] תוספות holds that when one buys three trees, he owns ט''ז אמות around them. And as forבבא בתרא פ''א where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a  plowing,תוספות holds that is if the trees extend beyond ט''ז אמות. [That is an average arms length. It is not anyone's arm length, but the average value. You can see the point of תוספות, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of עולא , but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees. To see my point here is the גמרא brings this: עולא said if one has a tree within ט''ז אמות of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The גמרא asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a כל שהוא of ground? No. For ט''ז אמות. But if one has two trees, he מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים   . Is that not for כל שהוא? No. For ט''ז אמות. You can see from the first question of the גמרא that the גמרא itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns ט''ז אמות around it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that while he does own the fruit but getting sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R. Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits with the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

  אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות בטענתו נגד ר' חננאל. תוספות גורס שכאשר אדם קונה שלושה עצים, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבם. בבא בתרא פ''א ששם אמר ר' יוחנן יש לו הקרקע מתחתם ומסביבם עד אורך חריש [כמלוא אורה וסלו], תוספות אוחז דהיינו אם האילנות מתרחבים מעבר לט''ז אמות. אתה יכול לראות את הטעם בתוספות, לא רק כדי להראות מה הוא מנסה להוכיח על האמירה של עולא, אלא גם לגבי חוק הבעלות בפועל סביב העצים. כדי לראות את דברי כאן מביאה הגמרא את זה: עולא אמר אם יש עץ בתוך ט''ז אמות מהגבול, אינו יכול להביא את הביכורים מחמת גניבה. שואלת הגמרא כך: אם יש לו עץ אחד וקרקעו מביא ביכורים וקורא. זה אפילו בשביל מעט אדמה? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אבל אם לאחד יש שני עצים, הוא מביא ואינו קורא פרשת ביכורים. זה לא בשביל כל שהוא? לא. בשביל ט''ז אמות. אפשר לראות מהשאלה הראשונה של הגמרא שהגמרא עצמו אוחז שכאשר אדם קונה עץ וקרקע שלו, יש לו ט''ז אמות סביבו

Besides this I wanted to mention that Rav Shach himself retracts the original way he was explaining Rabbainu Channanel--[that Ula means the fruit is stolen even though the tree is owned.]. Rav Shach later explained Rabbainu Chananel to mean the theft part of Ula's statement means the getting the nourishment from the property of his neighbor. Well that answer can go just as well for Tosphot. So What I want to say is what my learning partner (David Bronson) was always telling me: "Tosphot is always right." Tosphot with the Maharsha is the hardest but the most important learning that there is.

 Constitutional Democracy is in a crisis. That is in the USA and thus by definition everywhere else. This was seen a long time ago by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind. I think if people in school would learn English history --the roots of the American system, they would have a much better understanding of the Constitution of the USA. Don't start "American History" courses with 1776, or Plymouth Colony. Start with Henry II and the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford.

Eve when I was in high school I felt there was something superficial about the course American History. Even though I certainly had no idea of  English history. And even later learning John Locke did little or nothing to bridge the gap. Only with Daniel Defoe 's political pamphlets did I start to get an idea of what was going on. Then when learning English history did the force of the impact come home. The USA is an extension of England, not just externally but inwardly.

 You can see the point of Tosphot in his argument against Rabbainu Chananel [Bava Batra page 26] Tosphot holds that when one buys three trees he owns16 cubit [amot] around them. And as for Bava Batra 81 where R.Yochanan said he owns the ground under and around them up until the length of  a plower plowing,--Tosphot holds that is if the trees extend beyond 16 cubits. [That is an average arms length. It is anyone's arm length but the average value.

You can see the point of Tosphot, not just to show what he is trying to prove about the statement of Ula, but also as for the actual law of ownership around the trees.

To see my point here is the Gemara. Ula said if one has a tree within 16 yards of the border, he can not bring the first fruit because of theft. The Gemara asks this: If one has one tree and its ground, he brings first fruits. Is that not even for a bit of ground? No. For 16 amot.

But if one has two trees he brings, but does not say the required formula [the start of Parshat KI Tavo]. Is that not for just a bit? No. For 16 amot.   

You can see from the first question of the Gemara that the Gemara itself is holding that when one buys a tree and its ground, he owns 16 cubits round it.

I am being a bit short here. The idea is this. R Chananel holds the reason for Ula is because of actual theft of the fruit. But he also holds the law is not like Ula. Tosphot holds the reason for Ula is that he does own the fruit but gettiing sustenance from the ground of his neighbor. Furthermore Tosphot does hold the law is that when one buys three trees, he gets 16 amot around them.

So while Rav Shach argues for R Chananel and shows why the Rambam and the Beit Yoseph do not hold that one gets 16 cubits are the trees, I was just showing why Tosphot hold he does get 16 cubits.

In my own life, the issue of finding my true mate was a confusing issue. At while in Shar Yashuv on possibility came up. A Bat Talmid Chacham. But for some problem of a misunderstanding that was set to zero. But a girl I had known in high school was running after me. I had spoken to her about my very special experience in the Litvak Yeshiva world and she decided to join with me. But I was still set on te daughter of a true Torah scholar. For after all I wanted to learn Torah always and forever. After all we see in the Yerushalmi that every word of Torah is equal to all the other commandments, Thanks to God and her amazing persistence to get me I gave in. The best decision I ever made in my whole life.  What this shows is that as the sages said after the Creation was does God occupy his time with?  Answer Making matches

Consciousness traps

 Consciousness traps abound. They are like little hooks to that have bait. They are meant to capture one's mind. They work by helping to solve some problem. Then you think, "Well since they helped with that, then they must be able to help with more things."  Then one is caught. Zohar is like that. One might get impressed with some statement or other and then get pulled in by the hook. The hook that is hidden inside the bait. 

So then how does one discern good from evil. By Reason. Not faith in statements that are charismatic but have little or no substance. 

Reason is not a strong guide -because it is most often instrumental Reason.  Still it is the sole way of discerning objective morality. For objective morality is a set of universals. And universals are properties that individual things have in common. And the only way to discern them is by reason.  For that is the major characteristic of reason to see the common traits among thing -the synthetic a priori of Kant. Things that are known, but not known by observation. And morality are rules that are known [like: do not murder for the fun of it] but they are not known by observation. That is you can not know an "ought""from an is". You can see an "IS". It might look horrible. But that does not imply an "ought". To know something is wrong is not by observation but by reason that can see universal principles

A consciousness trap is something you need to be wary of for you must now yourself-you area human being. and flawed. It is too easy to get pulled into something evil by the appearance of its being great and holy.

What is the difference between an Afghan seeking refuge and Ukrainian seeking refuge? The second will not rape your children, and try to convert you to Islam Sharia Law, or if you do not accept, then kill you. The difference is clear. אין אדם גר עם נחש בכפיפה אחת  A Gemara brings the idea that a person can not dwell with someone else that is trying to hurt them. 

There is a reason not to bring into your home someone that will try to destroy it.