I know that when I first saw the path of learning of Rav Nahman--saying the words and going on, I mentioned this to Motti Freifeld [the son of Shelomo Freifeld, the founder of the great Litvak yeshiva Shar Yashuv]. Motti was adamant that Review is the only proper path. And to a large degree you see this in Litvak yeshivot--deep intense learning. and tons of review.

So doing "just saying the words and going on", I could not do since by that I understood zilch. But the intense sort of deep learning you have in the great Litvak Yeshivot I also had no idea how to get to that.

So I had a sort of compromise to say every section of the Gemara and Tosphot twice--and then go on. Eventually I added the Maharasha and Pnei Yehoshua. and since these were hard to get at all, I used to review them about ten times or more.

After some time has gone by, I can see the importance of both methods: fast learning and slow painstaking in depth.

[For the kind of in depth learning in the Litvak Yeshivot it is helpful to have a learning partner with a computer like mind [like  I had for awhile, David Bronson]. Without him, it takes a lot more time "to calculate the sugia" [the calculate the subject.] as they call it in Israel. For those like me that are more or less on our own in learning, I recommend getting as many of the books of the great Litvish sages from Rav Chaim of Brisk up to Rav Shach. -]

 I see after last week when an Arab took a machine gun and killed a bunch of people that, Israel is not letting Arabs in to work or to vacation at the sea. --at least for now at the start of Ramadan. I mean to say, that the usual surge of Arabs at the beach is towards the middle and end of Ramadan. But I would usually see plenty at the beginning also. Today I did nor see a single Arab at the beach. Obviously Israel has closed the borders. 

[The actual murders done last week were by Arabs with Israeli Citizenship living in Israel, so closing the border does nothing about that problem. Still I can see why the government is concerned about Arab Violence.]

[After a day of that, Israel let in all the Arabs with work permits. I see most of the regulars are back to work. -But maybe not all. But I see that Arabs without work permits are still not being let in since there were none at the beach.

 Even though the Kesef Mishna and the Gra disagree about what it means יש קניין לעכו''ם להפקיע מידי תרומה ומעשר it is still hard to see if there in ant difference in terms of practice. Though I do admit the approach of the Beit Joseph helps to understand the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah page 13. Thee it asks how could Israel bring the Omer from grain that grew in the property of the Canaanites. [Though I am wondering what the Gemara means there. Did Israel bring the omer after or before they reconquered the land that the grain was grow on.?]

The basic subject is this: The Rambam says there is no acquisition to a idolater IN Israel .So If a Israeli buys the land back, the grain that grows on it will be obligated in truma. The Kesef mishna says :this is even though the Gemara seems to hold there is acquisition, still it must be (according to the Rambam) tat that is not the law. Or that the Gemara is referring to the time when the field is in the possession of the idolater. 

The the Mabit brings that the Kesef Mishna himself was aware of this problem [that even if the land is owned by the idolater, it still is obligated in truma as the Rambam himself says later in that perek.]

So the Beit Yoseph answers the grain is obligated when the smoothing was done by a Israeli. 

Well even though the Beit Yoseph seems like a very new idea--that all agree that when the land is in the possession of the idolater it is not obligated, still if a Israeli buys the grain and does the smoothing of the stack, it is obligated, so where is the argument? The Gra agrees.  The Beit Yoseph himself brings this. So in the long run, where is the argument.

I am sorry for bein short and not explaining what I mean in detail , but it is really really late and I am really tired, To see what I mean look at the the Gemara in Avoda Zara page 47 and the Avi Ezri on First Fruits perek 2, laws 10 and 13

 The West is going crazy trying to turn children into queers and the clear attempts by thousands of “educators”, “counselors”, and other shepherds of the pervertization of children to CONVERT children from normal sexualization to perverted and mutilated sexualization and the Covid Hoaxl.

The over respect for is smart people in the West results in the fact that the social "sciences" and humanities  not worth much. For the professorate are sick-in-mind people who want to have the prestige of a PhD but are too stupid to get one in the real sciences like Physics or Chemistry.

 Jane Goodall showed about about our close relatives in the primates are vicious. "During the first ten years of the study I had believed […] that the Gombe chimpanzees were, for the most part, rather nicer than human beings. […] Then suddenly we found that chimpanzees could be brutal—that they, like us, had a darker side to their nature." Goodall also observed the tendency for aggression and violence within chimpanzee troops. Goodall observed dominant females deliberately killing the young of other females in the troop to maintain their dominance, sometimes going as far as cannibalism. And this is in us. [People are evil.] The difference Dr Huemer wrote that we can use reason to see objective morality.

And this certainly goes along with Hegel. However Huemer is coming more from the direction of GE Moore.

But to Leonard Nelson we know good from evil by a third sense--non intuitive immediate knowledge. And I am not at all able to see who among these greats was more correct. But one thing all agree with, we can know the difference between right and wrong--if we try hard enough. But without that effort we are naturally evil.  [See In Praise of Folly by Erasmus, and or Candide.]

When Husserl was arguing against Leonard Nelson, he was on one hand making a false accusation of psychologism..But in general he was arguing against psychologim in his book anyway. And the argument is always based on the idea that the laws of Logic have nothing to do with empirical things. The laws are forever true. So my question is that after that we have logic that is fractional. Does that change the argument? 

I might make clear that to Nelson, the categories, a priori knowledge is not because that is how our minds work, but rather it is knowledge that we know not by the usual ways of pure reason or pure observation.

i think people ought to look at the PhD thesis of. Kelley ross where he goes into great depth about immediate non intuitive knowledge and shows clearly that reality is really two fold. reality includes both physical and mental phenomenon and that neither can be reduced to the other and that knowledge has to start from propositions than can not be proved because they are the start of reasoning and even of any kind of empirical knowledge--without which empirical knowledge can not even begin. 

 It is best not to try to extend reasoning into realms of things in themselves--things that can not be checked by observation

The problem of evil is well known problem since ancient times. To give you an idea of the scope of the issue let me say there are more than 2 billion entries on this issue when you search google. Happy reading. And among these authors have been the deepest and most profound. So what I think is this: We would do well not to try to reason about spiritual things at all. We should mind our own plot of land and be happy with what we have and not be in the category of those that Do not  look at "what is above, what is beneath, what is within, what is outside." מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור/ The Gemara says harsh words about those that look at these. Now the problem of evil is hard to understand, but when it comes to the idea that everything that God does is for the good, we ought to accept the fact and just move on.

[What are "things in themselves"? When you look at a piece of wood it has a shape and a color and a feel to it. These are characteristics that describe how you interact with that  piece of wood. But what is it without your interaction with it? What is it without the adjectives that you add to it?"

So we might know about God, and morality, and souls and angels. But not by reason. Rather by Faith. And faith is important. However one should not confuse faith with knowledge. And when one does confuse these two things, that is where religious insanity begins.