my son izhak ben avraham held with in depth learning.

 The thing of the Litvaks is learning in depth. I had a friend who became the acting rosh yeshiva of Chaim Berlin Yeshiva in N,Y. that told me once he saw no point in ''bekiut'' [fast learning-saying the words and going on.] This point was brought home to me over the years --first by Motti Freifeld in Shar Yashuv and later then in Uman when my own learning partner David Bronson refused to "go on" until he got the subject perfectly.

I believe this started with the Gra because it is the most obvious and characteristic thing about the Litvak world that goes with the Gra. I am beginning to think that this sort of learning in depth is the only possible way to get to the light of Torah.

But at the Mir in NY there was the afternoon ''bekiut learning'' which also makes sense to me--but only if done along with some sessions that are done in depth.

I might mention that my son izhak ben avraham held with in depth learning.  

Other lessons I learned from him: (1) exercise, (2) the importance of following the path of the Gra in every detail--including the signature of the Gra on that letter of excommunication. (4) Not to be hard hearted. like it says in Torah about the brothers of Joseph that he pleaded with them but they were hard hearted and sold him. Also with Naval HaCarmeli who was hard hearted when the men of King David asked for help. In fact, this last  lesson seem to me to be the most important one that must learn from the life of my son. (5) Shmrirat Habrit - to keep the laws of the Torah concerning sexual issues like it says in Leviticus  chapters 18 and 20. [ And not to add them what is mentioned there.] (6) Coming and staying in Israel. [This is also mentioned in Torah in the verse in Deuteronomy ""Keep the commandment so that you may come to the Land of Canaan and that you may have length of days in the Land. [Parshat HaYira at the end.] (7) He also had inventions which he never published. so, like my dad, he had an interest in mechanical engineering. 

 Closing of the American Mind  by Allan Bloom suggested throwing out the Humanities and social studies department of universities [unless they get straight]. It is an amazing book tracing the crisis to an essential contradiction in the Enlightenment. But it misses the infiltration of the whole system the universities by the Neo Marxists that is at least one major cause of the problems that he noted.     

Allan Bloom also did not note the movement in the time of Kant to simply make universities into tech schools. Before that time they were theological institutions. So many wanted to change them into what we have today with Humanities and social studies departments. The first idea would have been better. 

Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri

 I would like to recommend review of every lesson in Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach 400 times before going on. This is based on the idea of the Gemara of 400 times review plus the idea of the Gra [the Gaon of  Villna] that one needs knowledge of the seven wisdoms before one can know anything in Torah. He said, ''When one lacks knowledge in any of the seven wisdoms, that lack will cause a lack in understanding of Torah a hundred times more.'' [This I recommend for the sake of my son,  IZHAK BEN AVRAHAM.  And, in fact, Izhak held with lots of review. When I suggested,  ''Just say the words and go on'', he did not agree.] The Physics and Mathematics is brought more openly in the Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed in the Introduction and later in the parable of a king in his country. \

[The Gemara says, ''Anyone who does not review his learning is as if he buries his sons and daughters.'']

My plan is that after 40 days in a row of learning one page or section that then one goes to the previous page if that first one was not clear, or to the next of it was clear. but that whole should be reviewed 400 times.

ALSO to listen to lectures in Math Physics and the Avi Ezri and Rav Chaim of Brisk from experts.

Also I suggest  some fast sessions to get through the Avi Ezri in total and through the basic core subjects in Mathematics and Physics, and 1/2 page of Gemara, Rashi, Tophot, Maharsha daily to go for the merit of my son, Izhak.

wake up from ''woke''. Intellect can often lead people astray just as much as being dumb--even more so.

 relevant to the new year when people should wake up from ''woke'' neo-Marxism. But I do not know for other how to do so except to close the university humanities and social studies departments.

[i might suggest to learn the philosophical roots of woke in Hegel, Marx, and Marcuse. But that can not work since people can be very smart and still not see mistakes. [''Hegel’s problem is that it is possible to level the charge of insufficiency that he directs at Pyrrhonian skepticism against his own account of the appearance of knowledge.'']  

Intellect can often lead people astray just as much as being dumb--even more so. See Rav Nahman's comments on this in his book the Le.M vol. II

See also this insightful essay: https://newcriterion.com/issues/2000/9/the-difficulty-with-hegel

laws of mourning

   In laws of mourning the second day of festivals count for one day of mourning according to the Rambam. The Ramban asks on this from the law that a bridegroom who prepared the meal and then his father died  first does the seven days of joy and then seven of mourning.. That is even though during the days of joy he must observe private laws of mourning. [That makes a difference since in a case one becomes a mourner one hour before a festival and does even one act of mourning, then the festival nullifies the rest of the days of mourning.

This last point is what Rav Shach brings to reinforce the question of the Ramban.

But I think that three things combine to make the law of the Rambam true. One is that a festival is stronger than the days of joy and thus has power to nullify the mourning completely. See Moed Katan that says a positive command of the multitude nullifies a positive command of an individual. Second.;-the thing that the bridegroom does is private. At no time does he do the open laws of mourning like turning over his bed. Third--nullifying the days of mourning for the bridegroom would mean not having any days of mourning at all 

______________________________________________________________

   In הלכות אבל the second day of יום טוב count for one day of mourning according to the רמב''ם. The רמב''ן asks on this from the law that a חתן who prepared the meal and then his father died  first does the seven days of joy and then seven of mourning.. That is even though during the days of joy he must observe private laws of mourning. [That makes a difference since in a case one becomes a mourner one hour before a festival and does even one act of mourning, then the festival nullifies the rest of the days of mourning. This last point is what רב שך brings to reinforce the question of the רמב''ן. But I think that three things combine to make the law of the רבב''ם true. One is that a festival is stronger than the days of joy and thus has power to nullify the mourning completely. See מועד קטן  that says a positive command of the multitude nullifies a positive command of an individual. Second.;-the thing that the bridegroom does is private. At no time does he do the open laws of mourning like turning over his bed. Third--nullifying the days of mourning for the bridegroom would mean not having any days of mourning at all 

______________________________________________________________________

בהלכות אבל היום השני של יום טוב של גלות עולה למניין ימי אבל יום אחד לפי הרמב''ם. הרמב''ן שואל על זה מההלכה שחתן שהכין את הסעודה ואחר כך מת אביו עושה תחילה שבעת ימי שמחה ואחר כך שבעה של אבלות. זאת למרות שבימות השמחה עליו לקיים ביחידות דיני אבלות. [זה משנה כיוון שבמקרה נעשים אבלים שעה לפני מועד ועושים אפילו מעשה אבל אחד, אזי החג מבטל את שאר ימי אבלות.] נקודה אחרונה זו היא מה שמביא רב שך לחזק את שאלת הרמב''ן. אבל אני חושב ששלושה דברים מתחברים כדי לבאר שאת דין הרמב''ם אמת. האחת היא שחג חזק מימי השמחה ובכך יש בכוחו לבטל את האבל של יום אחד לחלוטין. ראה מועד קטן שאומר מצווה חיובית של הרבים מבטלת פקודה חיובית של יחיד. שנית.;-הדבר שהחתן עושה הוא פרטי. בשום זמן הוא לא עושה את הלכות אבלות הפתוחות כמו להפוך את מיטתו. שלישית--ביטול ימי אבלות לחתן פירושו שלא יהיו ימי אבלות כלל

i am in mourning for my son Itzchak. Thus i post here two links to my books that he had a large contribution to help me write.

 Ideas in Bava Metzia ch.s 8 and 9 

Ideas in Shas

It is a terrible thought to note that he was begging people for help for years and no one wanted to help him. So he just laid down and died. [He was asking his family to come live with him and no one wanted to--even me. At best I wrote to him he should come to me in Israel, but he obviously needed help even to do so. ] I hope that since he had no place in this world, that at least God will find a place for him in the next.  Where no one else found a place in their heart for him that God will find a place for him in His and in Gan Eden.

But to say this to family members is hard to decide. Those that know, already know. So why make them feel worse? Those that do not know will just find someone else to blame.[Just like I am doing. Instead of asking ,''Why did I not help?,'' I ask, ''Why others did not help?"]

The problem is that humans -given the right set of circumstances-- can be incredibly kind or incredibly cruel. All I can do now is to dedicate any good deed I will ever do for his sake to have a place in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps also to do review 400  times every lesson in Mathematics, Physics and the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.   

The point of concentrating on positive things that I can do, is that if I think overly much about what I did wrong, I am likely to go insane.

 I was at the beach and explained to some people there about from where the woke agenda comes from. I traced the lineage to the left Hegelians, Marx, the Frankfurt school and cultural Marxism. But while doing so I was asked about my own philosophical development.  I have mentioned this before, but just for now let me repeat.   Before and during high school I learned a lot of Spinoza. but I did not want to go into philosophy because I thought modern philosophy was not  good. So instead I went to two great Litvak yeshivot--Shar Yashuv and the Mir in N.Y.. But I still continued my philosophical education. In Shar Yashuv I learned Sartre's  Being And Nothingness. Eventually I arrived at Kant and the modification on KANT of Fries and Nelson.

I had explained the difference between the rationalists [Spinoza and Leibniz] and the empiricists [Locke and Hume], Reason recognizes truth as opposed to the senses recognize truth. this is different from pot modernism which hold there in truth, 

 In short I was asked what my philosophy is. I said reason recognizes truth. But I added ''What kind of truth? Universals.'' Then I went into that subject. then to Fries about a third source of knowledge