The main source of ambiguity the straight and holy Path of the Gra, come from the fact that after  Yeshiva years,  things tend to go haywire  This led me to consider the vey important fact that according to the Rishonim, Torah is not Divine Decree Theory but rather that Divine decree is based on Reason.{And of course Reason was created by God. In fact in the Middle Ages there was no Divine Decree Theories even among Muslims and Christians. Things were not thought to be right or wrong because they were decreed by God but rather they were decreed by God because they were good.

Thus I noted that Torah is meant to bring to objective morality.

 In the west Boric Acid  is totally unknown as a cure for all sorts of skin problems but well known in Uman. This was prescribed for all kinds of problems included ear aches in liquid form

 s-1 midi file slightly edited   s1 nwc

Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In Interest do you go by the beginning or the end? Most Rishonim hold you go by the beginning. So even if the 100 that one borrows goes up to be worth 120, one still gives back 100. [In Torah law --deUraita] [If you would go by the end that would be interest.] Rav Shach says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law, "a guarantee without reduction." That is one borrows money, and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not interest. But Rav Shach sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow 100 and say he is going to pay back 100 [and then the 100 at time of payment goes up to be worth 120] this would be considered interest if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is interest from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the lender lends 100 and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth 120. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ribit]? The reason it is not ribit when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a guarantee without reduction also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  The two Gemaras where this all comes up are Bava Metzia page 75A and 67.

 In נשך do you go by the beginning or the end? Most ראשונים hold you go by the beginning. So even if the מאה that one borrows goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים, one still gives back מאה. [If you would go by the end that would be נשך.] רב שך says something here that I do not understand. He asks from a different law a משכנתא בלי נכייתא. That is one borrows money and as a guarantee gives a field without reduction of the payment due. This is not forbidden from the תורה. This to me sounds the exact same thing. We go by the beginning so that also is not נשך. But רב שך sees  this as a difficulty in this way: If one would borrow מאה and ואומר  he is going to pay back מאה [and then the מאה at time of payment goes up to be worth מאה ועשרים] this would be considered נשך if not for the fact that we go by the beginning. [I must be missing something here because to me both laws sound the same. We go by the beginning so neither is נשך from the Torah.] To see my point imagine when the מלווה מלווה מאה  and he knows that at the time of payment it will be worth מאה ועשרים. Can there be any doubt that that is interest [ריבית]? The reason it is not ריבית when he does not know the future us because the future is in doubt. And we know the reason a משכנתא בלא ניכייתא also is because he does not know that he will profit by plowing and seeding.  

בבא מציעא ס''ז  וע''ה ע''א  

בנשך הולכים לפי ההתחלה או הסוף? רוב ראשונים מחזיקים  בהתחלה. אז גם אם המאה שאדם לווה עולה להיות שווה מאה ועשרים, עדיין מחזירים מאה. [אם היית הולך על סוף זה יהיה נשך.] רב שך אומר כאן משהו שאני לא מבין. הוא שואל מדין אחר: משכנתא בלא נכייתא. כלומר לווים כסף וכערבות נותן שדה ללא הפחתת התשלום המגיע. זה לא אסור מהתורה. זה נשמע לי בדיוק אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה כך שגם זה לא נשך. אבל רב שך רואה בזה קושי באופן זה: אם היה לווה מאה ואומר הוא הולך להחזיר מאה [ואז המאה בשעת התשלום עולה לשווה מאה ועשרים] זה ייחשב נשך אם לאו על העובדה שאנחנו הולכים בהתחלה. [בטח חסר לי כאן משהו כי לי שני החוקים נשמעים אותו הדבר. אנחנו הולכים לפי ההתחלה אז אינם נשך מהתורה.]

לראות את הנקודה שלי דמיינו מתי המלווה מלווה מאה והוא יודע שבזמן התשלום זה יהיה שווה מאה ועשרים. האם יש ספק שזה ריבית ? הסיבה שזה לא ריבית כשהוא לא יודע את העתיד  כי העתיד בספק. ואנחנו יודעים שהסיבה שמכנתא בלא ניכייתא היא גם משום שאינו יודע שירוויח בחרישה ובזריעה.

 There are problems in the religious world that are hard to understand. The major solution is that the higher one goes on the scale of numinous value, the easier it is to fall from positive value to negative value. That is -if you take the scale of values to be increasing from pure form [the vessel] with no content to infinite God with no form, then you can see that for every true positive value, there are many negative values. The Sitra Achra. 

But in areas of all form no content -Logic-the fall from the true is not evil, but simply mistakes. But as ne goes into areas of greater content, the mistakes become the Dark Side.  

So you can see how the religious world (outside of the straight and narrow of authentic Torah--the Gra), becomes fanaticism for he Dark Side.

See the Friesian School approach.

Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change

 Russia has threatened the West with Climate Change. From balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit or about 21 Celsius to around 1,000,000 Celsius. They changed their doctrine of when to go to climate change about two years ago to include the sort of scenario that is going on now.

And as for they have been saying about that Ukraine is run now by Fascists --that is not so absurd as it sounds. I myself barely escaped with my life. 

 I think I had a kind of attachment with God when I got to Israel after some years of study in the great Litvak Yeshivot of NY. But I have never been able to figure out "what it meant". Was there some sort of special mission for for or what?  In mystic writings this kind of "Devekut" attachment is referred to as attachment to the Infinite Light. אור אין סוף. It does not say a lot but it is is indicative of what happens when the ight of the Next World Seeps into this world.

The best clarity I came to about this issue was when I began to consider that "Reason" alone can not justify Torah. There is a gap. So for about ten days I realized that questions on Torah were not all motivated by hearts that were not seeking the truth. So I wondered what justification for Torah could there be? Then I discovered the web site of Dr Kelley Ross who answers this in this way. There is a third source of knowledge [ besides empirical and besides reason.]

I was reminded of this because Ronen a friend of mine here has said to me a few times that he can not see the Litvak approach ["Learning Torah is the best thing"] as anything but an intellectual approach.

I have tried to explain to him  that there is a sort of Divine light that comes along with learning simple and plain Gemara Tosphot and the Maharsha.