Rav Kinievky said that it is best not to emphasize different aspects of Torah, but instead just to keep Torah plain and simple. He noted that when people emphasize one aspect over others, that is the very thing they fail in. 

But even so I think he would agree with the primacy of the mitzvah of learning Torah.

And I would in fact lie to emphasize that aspect, but I would like to include Physics and Mathematics along with that. 

But I admit that the Rishonim that included Physics along with Torah also included Metaphysics, [i.e. Aristotle's book The Meta-Physics] I have trouble emphasizing philosophy. Especially academic philosophy.

The show of religiosity

 One of the problems with Torah Scholars that are demons as mentioned in the Le.M of Rav Nahman of Breslov is in family relations. The problem itelf is mentioned in the Ari in the Eitz Chaim itself. And of course the Gemara itself mentions this in several places.  אם אתה רוה דור שצרות באים עליו צא ןבדוק בדייני ישראל, שכל הצרות הבאות לעולם לא באות אלא בגלל דייני ישראל. The problem is mainly that these sort of pseudo Torah Scholars is that they use their positions of authority to destroy families. This is very common, but is forbidden to mention Lason Hara [the prohibition of slander] is often mentioned. Still at times it is important to warn people that those that make the most effort to make a show of how religious they are, most often have an alternative agenda in mind.  After all you should ask yourself if the Torah itself saysהצנע לכת עם אלקיך  to walk modestly with your God (i e. Do not advertise how walk with God  then why does the religious world make such a point about appearing religious --in exact opposition to the Torah?

. 

 

the vaccine industry

 Food purity and warnings against additives came from a lifelong crusade by a chemist named Wiley. But it was a battle against corporations and Congress. The corporations that were making money by putting formaldehyde into our food did not care about the effects. The parallel to this nowadays in the vaccine industry.

To clarify: Congress was not against him but rather simply refused to pass food purity laws. It was mainly the newspapers and corporations that were against him. So when we but soda we now what is in it and we are not worried about formaldehyde additives Why? Because of Wiley. But who remembers him nowadays?

Myself I admit that I would probably be more susceptible to the Covid-Vaccine-scam if not for the warning of Rav Nahman in the Conversations of Rav Nahman perek 50

בבבא בתרא דף כ''ד

אביי בבבא בתרא דף כ''ד מדייק מן המשנה שרוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. מה אומרת המשנה ההיא? היא אומרת: "דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שחזקתו בא מן המקור." המשנה אומרת שיש חזקה. ושהחזקה גורמת לדם להיות ספק. ואביי מדייק מזה כשיש רוב אין ספק. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. אם כן מה זה מכוונת המשנה? הוא שמאמצע המסדרון ולמעלה, הדם הוא ספק בגלל החזקה, ומאמצע ולמטה, הדם הוא ודאי טמא בגלל שיש רוב. רוב הדם באזור זה הוא מהמקור. זה מתאים לגמרא בבא בתרא כ''ד והוא מה שאמר רב הונא דם בתוך פרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספק טמא, מן הלול ולמטה בודאי טמא. כי מהאמצע ולמטה יש חזקה ורוב, ומאמצע ומעלה יש רק חזקה. זה נראה ברור אם תהיה רק ​​הגמרא בבבא בתרא. אבל אביי שואל על רב הונא במסכת נידה י''ז ע''ב, "אם אתה אזלת (הולך) לפי הספק, אז הדם שנמצא בכל המסדרון צריך להיות טמא. אם אתה הולך לפי החזקה, אז הדם שנמצא באזור התחתון צריך להיחשב טמא ודם שנמצא באזור העליון צריך להיחשב טהור בהחלט. זה נשמע יותר כמו שאלה על המשנה. איך זה שהמשנה אומרת בגלל חזקה יש ספק? אלא אם יש לנו חזקה, צריך להיות שאין ספק. ואם יש לנו ספק, אז אין חזקה. כנראה גירסת הרמב''ם הייתה כך ששאל אביי על המשה וכך ענה אותו רב הונא וזה לדעתי מסביר מדוע מביא הרמב"ם את הדין שאמר רב הונא ומתעלם משאלת אביי. הסיבה היא שאבי עצמו מסכים בבירור עם ההלכה של רב הונא וביאור רב הונא במשנה. כי שם זה אביי בעצמו שאומר מהמשנה נלמד רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב.  זה אומר שאפילו אביי חושב שחזקה לא תספיק לומר שהדם בהחלט טמא וצריך רוב גם. זה בדיוק כמו רב הונא. אז אביי שאל את שאלתו בנידה י''ז ואחר כך הסכים עם רב הונא

עכשיו רב שך מביא את הרמב''ם הזה באסורי ביאה ה:ה אבל עוסק מדוע דם באזור התחתון צריך להיות יותר מסתם רוב, אלא מצוי גם. התשובה לכך היא כמו שאומר רב שך: שכאן אתה צריך רוב טוב יותר, כי החזקה של האשה שהיא טהורה עד שאתה יודע אחרת. אבל יותר מכך אני רוצה להציע שזו הייתה אותה נקודה בדיוק של רבא נגד אביי: "רוב ומצוי קא אמרת". וזה לא הולך כמו ר' חנינא שמחזיק רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב. כך ברור שהרמב''ם פשוט הוסיף את הנקודה הנוספת (של מצוי) בגלל הדעה האחרת שרוב וקרוב אנחנו הולכים לפי הקרוב.

Introduction. Blood in the lower part of the hallway is רוב but considered near to the attic. So for it to be considered to have come from the חדר you have to sayרוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב

 אביי in בבא בתרא דף כ''ד derives from a משנה that רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב what does that mishna say? It says דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שהזקתו בא מן המקור the משנה says there is a חזקה and that חזקה makes the blood to be a doubt. And אביי derives from this a  רוב is no doubt. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב  Thus what this must mean is from the middle of the hallway and upwards, the blood is a doubt because of the  חזקה/ And from the middle and downwards the blood is definitely טמא because of there is a רוב. Most of the blood in that area is from the source. This fits in the גמרא in בבא בתרא and is what רב הונא said דם הנמצא בפרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספיקו טמא מן הלול ולמטה ספיקו בודאי טמא that would be because from the middle and down there is a  חזקה ורוב and from the middle and up there is only a  חזקה. This seems clear if there would only be the גמרא in בבא בתרא. But אביי asks on רב הונא in מסכת נידה י''ז ע''ב."if you go by a doubt then the blood found in entire hallway should be impure. If you go by חזקה then the blood found in the lower area should be considered impure and blood found in the upper area should be considered definitely pure. This sounds more like a question on the משנה. How is it that the משנה says because of a חזקה there is a doubt? Rather is we have a חזקה there should be no doubt. And if we have a doubt then there is no חזקה This I think explains why the רמב''ם brings the law as stated by רב הונא and ignores the question of אביי, The reason is that אביי himself clearly agrees with the explanation of רב הונא in the משנה. For there it is אביי himself who says from the משנה we learn.רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב That mist mean that even אביי thinks חזקה would not be enough to say the blood is definitely impure and we need a "רוב"also. This is exactly like רב הונא. So אביי asked his question in נידה י''ז and then later agreed with רב הונא. 

In other words if you would have the mishna and then the questioning of Abyee on the mishna [instead of on Rav Huna]and then the approach of Rav Huna, everything would be clear. 

I might have been more clear, but i think if you think about it you will see my point. For the Mishna is saying something that at first glace does not make sense and you can understand the statement of Rav Huna a coming to clarify it.

 I really do not have any Gemara to look this up, and  it occurs to me  that without a Gemara to look this up I might be wrong. Still I would like to suggest this idea: Abyee in Bava Batra pg 24 derives from a mishna that רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב what does that mishna say? It says דם הנמצא בפרוזדור ספיקו טמא שהזקתו בא מן המקור the Mishna says there is a חזקה and that חזקה makes the blood to be a doubt. And Abyee derives from this a ''most'' רוב is no doubt. רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב  Thus what this must mean is from the middle of the hallway and upwards, the blood is a doubt because of the  חזקה/ And from the middle and downwards the blood is definitely impure because of there is a "most". Most of the blood in that area is from the source. This fits in the Gemara in Bava Batra and is what Rav Huna said דם הנמצא בפרוזדור מן הלול ולמעלה ספיקו טמא מן הלול ולמטה ספיקו בודאי טמא that would be because from the middle and down there is a  חזקה ורוב and from the middle and up there is only a  חזקה

This seems clear if there would only be the Gemara in Bava Batra. But Abyee asks on Rav Hunaa in Nida pg 17b."if you go by a doubt then the blood found in entire hallway should be impure. If you go by חזקה then the blood found in the lower area should be considered impure and blood found in the upper area should be considered definitely pure. This sounds more like a question on the Mishna. How is it that the Misshan says because of a חזקה there is a doubt? Rather is we have a חזקה there should be no doubt. And if we have a doubt then there is no חזקה This I think explains why the Rambam brings the law as stated by Rav Huna and ignores the question of Abyee, The reason is that Abyee himself clearly agrees with the explanation of Rav Huna in the Mishna in Bava Batra. For there it is Abyee himself who says from the Mishna we learn.רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב That must mean that even Abyee thinks חזקה would not be enough to say the blood is definitely impure and we need a "most "also. This is exactly like Rav Huna. So Abyee asked his question in Nida 17 and then later agreed with Rav Huna. 

I should mention here that I do not recall all these gemaras off hand but rather aw them in the book of Rav Shach in Laws of Forbidden Relations 5 law 5. There I see he has a deep explanation of the Rambam. But here I was concentrating just on the statements of Abyee and Rav Huna. Just the logistics, not the deeper reasons for what they are saying. That I leave to Raav Shach. 

  Some people have noticed the problems with Kant's way of showing how and why principles of science work. This started a long time ago. The issue is this do we know principles like space, time, causality by induction or a priori reasons. Induction does not work as Hume showed, so Kant tried the a priori approach. The ways he goes about this are considered to be flimsy. Some people are even harsh about this. Danny Frederick wrote that the way Kant does this is  invalid and dogmatic.  So I wonder why the Kelley Ross's  approach [based on Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson] is not more looked into. This is thoroughly Kantian, but   corrects this one area by the idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. I would think that people that are Kantians would look into this approach.`

i realize to some extent that the whole Friesian approach has taken a long time to get into shape. You can see this yourself if you look at Fries. And as for Leonard Nelson, well things are a lot better but still there was a lot of difficulty when Relativity came on the scene. Altogether would say that the Kelley Ross approach puts it altogether in the best way  the link is to the general information site of dr ross but you might take a look at his phd thesis at that site which has a lot more detail. 

[I was motivated to mention this because Fries and Nelson were both mentioned by an Analytic philosopher] and that fellow also noticed the Nelson Affair. [Nelson was a pariah for the philosophers at  Gottingen. but very much in favor by David Hilbert. Personally I would go with David Hilbert any day of the week.