children need a wholesome environment

 One reason to obey the excommunication of the Gra is that children need a wholesome environment that you just can not find anywhere outside of the straight Litvak world.  You might be inspired by Rav Nachman and that is fine. But there is a difference between what you can learn and the  environment in which children ought to be raised

[Anyway my opinion is that Rav Nahman himself was not an object of that "herem" because that  was more specific than most people realize. To see this you ought to look up the actual language of the herem which I found in one book that contained  the actual language plus the testimonies that were collected in Villna before the publication of the herem.

It should not matter what the herd thinks. What should matter is what is objectively true

 I was going to Uman Ukraine every year for Rosh Hashanah and staying for some months and sometimes longer. They used to have a very nice celebration on may 9. Every class in the local schools would put on its own presentation for the victory over the Nazis. This went on the whole day. But at one point, that was silenced. Then one after the other, all the statues of WWII heroes were taken down. Then even the central Russian orthodox church that was packed every  Sunday was locked and shuttered.  

It is almost as if they regret their victory over the Nazis 

 I think the  approach of the Litvak world is the right thing: to learn in depth in the morning and to learn fast in the afternoon. The learning in depth I think should be with ten times review of every section. Even though learning with depth and understanding should be the main emphasis still there is a place for fast learning--jut saying the words and going on. 

Counterfeit Torah

 Most of what is sold as Torah nowadays is not Torah at all. It is a fake and not authentic. This is the very reason for the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication--to warn people to stay away from Torah of the Dark Side.  The is idolatry which dresses up in Jewish rituals in order to seem kosher

Politics is not a part of Torah thought

 Politics is not a part of Torah thought. I do not know from where the Reform get the idea that "social justice" is somehow a part of Torah While on one hand, I can see some slight indications of some kind of   government in Torah, but these are only slight. Even for a king that is made by a prophet, there is an argument in Tractate Sanhedrin what powers he has. To one opinion all the threats of Samuel were legal. To another opinion they were just threats, but not actual legal powers.

Note: Samuel got angry at Israel for asking for  king,  and even made  a miracle to show the people of Israel that God was angry at them for asking for  king . Then he told them all the terrible things that a king would do to them, To one opinion, these threats were just Samuel telling them what in fact a king would do, not that they be legal. To another opinion these things that a king will do would be legal.

In TORAH the mitzvah of making a king is only when people ask for a king. But the prophet Samuel showed that asking for a king is a terrible sin. It is like brining a sin offering. There is a mitzvah to bring a in offering if one has sinned, but it is better not to sin in the first place.

 i was reading Robert Hanna' works and his blog and noted that he thinks all American so called "Analytic Philosophy" is destined for the trash bin and instead advocates a Forward to Kant Approach. This makes a lot of sense except for one particular problem--that Kant's solution to  the synthetic a-priori never really worked that well. There were lots of different approaches after him trying to answer the same problem and later there was the Neo Kant approach- all of which fell into oblivion.

[One problem in Kant was noticed right away by a close friend of his Scholz and his critique was printed  and Kant claimed after that that he would answer. The question was about the Transcendental Deduction--not at all a trivial side issue, but rather the fulcrum upon which the entire Critique of Pure Reason revolves.

And my mind there is another flaw. It is that philosophy is supposed to help us understand the world and ourselves-not create a system that is not credible without a lot of evidence. I mean, in natural sciences or mathematics, you do not start with assumptions that sound good but are not very obvious, You start with simple things. The shortest line between two points is  straight line, Not a set of questions based on Berkley and Hume.

By this I do not mean to trivialize Kant, but rather suggest the modification of Fries and Leonard Nelson to Kant in which the realm that reason can penetrate is limited but that by immediate non intuitive knowledge there is knowledge of the 12 categories  and possibly even faith a per Otto

[hume made a mistake for some reason Kant did not pick up and which was a stumbling block for him i.e that reason can tell us only when a definition entails a contradiction--a per Euclid. ]

Bava Metzia end of Hamafkid page 43 side a

 If one  hands over to another  coins that are not tied up, then he can use them. If they are robbed then to Rav Huna he has to pay them back. To Rav Nahman he does not have to since he is in the category of a paid guard who is not obligated to pay back in case of robbery, [But in case they were lost or stolen then he would have to pay.] Rav Nahman asks on Rav Huna from a teaching" If a gizbar [a person in charge of the money of the Temple] hands loose coins to a money changer and the money changer uses that money then the Gizbar is guilty of meila] [using money that was dedicated to the Temple for private use]. To Rav Huna he should be guilty even if the money changer did not use the money. My question here is that acquiring of a paid guard or a borrower  is by picking up. Not by usage. But to be guilty of meila does require use. so the same question applies to Rav Nahman. changing domain and acquiring of the money as a loan or as a paid guard happens before usage. But if you want to say that anyway, there is no meila until usage, then to both Rav Nahman and Rav Huna cases there should not be meila until it is used and in any case it not clear why the gizbar is guilty of meila when the money changer uses the money. He should be guilty right away.

 I was at the sea again and on the way back it occurred to me how one  might answer the question I asked yesterday night. I think Rav Nahman must be understanding Rav Huna to mean that the money is considered a loan,  not as a borrowing of an object where the object is considered as belonging to the original owner. That it unlike a loan where the money belong to the borrower but he has to pay back that same amount. so both Rav Nahman and Rav Huna are understanding that for there to be meila there has to be change of ownership or  usage. This is like Rav Huna in Bava Metzia page 99 Rav Huna said one who borrows an ax, if he chopped with it he transgress and if not then not. so now the question of Rav Nahman makes sense. If the money that was handed to the money changer was a loan then if the money changer doe not use it, still since it is a loan the gizbar should transgress the prohibition of meila right away 

I would like to mention that this is also how Rav  Shach  understands the question of Rav Nahman on Rav Huna in Laws of Robbery and Loss chapter 13 halacha 17

I 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 If one  hands over to another coins that are not tied up, then he can use them. If they are robbed then to רב הונא he has to pay them back. To רב נחמן he does not have to since he is in the category of a paid guard who is not obligated to pay back in case of גזילה, [But in case they were lost or גנבה then he would have to pay.] רב נחמן asks on רב הונא from a teaching" If a גזבר [a person in charge of the money of the Temple] hands loose coins to a money changer  (שולחני), and the money changer uses that money then the גזבר is guilty of מעילה. To רב הונא he should be guilty even if the money changer did not use the money. My question here is that acquiring of a paid guard or a borrower  is by picking up. Not by usage. But to be guilty of מעילה does require use. so the same question applies to  רב נחמן. changing domain and acquiring of the money as a loan or as a paid guard happens before usage. But if you want to say that anyway, there is no מעילה until usage, then to both  רב נחמן and רב הונא cases there should not be מעילה until it is used and in any case it not clear why the גזבר is guilty of מעילה when the money changer uses the money. He should be guilty right away.

 It occurred to me how one  might answer the question. I think רב נחמן must be understanding Rav Huna to mean that the money is considered a loan,  not as a borrowing of an object where the object is considered as belonging to the original owner. That it unlike a loan where the money belong to the borrower but he has to pay back that same amount. so both רב נחמן and רב הונא are understanding that for there to be מעילה there has to be change of ownership or  usage. This is like רב הונא in בבא מציעא צ''ט רב הונא said one who borrow an ax, if he chopped with it, he transgress מעילה and if not then not. so now the question of רב נחמן makes sense. If the money that was handed to the money changer שלחני was a loan then if the money changer אינו משתמש , still since it is a loan the גזבר should transgress the prohibition of מעילה right away 

אם אחד מוסר לאחר מטבעות שאינם קשורים, אז הוא יכול להשתמש בהם. אם הם נשדדו אז לרב הונא הוא צריך לשלם. לרב נחמן אינו חייב כיון שהוא בקטגוריה של שומר בתשלום שאינו חייב להחזיר במקרה של גזלה, [אבל במקרה שאבדו או גנבו אז יצטרך לשלם.] רב נחמן שואל על רב הונא מהוראה: אם גזבר [אחראי על כספי המקדש] מוסר מטבעות לחלפן (שולחני), והחלפן משתמש בכסף זה אז הגזבר אשם במעילה. לרב הונא הוא צריך להיות אשם גם אם חלפן הכספים לא השתמש בכסף. השאלה שלי כאן היא שקניין שומר שכר או לווה היא על ידי הגבה, לא על ידי שימוש. אבל כדי להיות אשם במעילה כן דורש שימוש. אז אותה שאלה חלה על רב נחמן. שינוי רשות ורכישת הכסף כהלוואה או כשומר שכר קורה לפני השימוש. אבל אם אתה רוצה להגיד בכל מקרה אין מעילה עד השימוש, אז גם לרב נחמן וגם לרב הונא אין מעילה עד שנעשה שימוש. ובכל מקרה לא ברור למה הגזבר אשם במעילה רק כשהחלפן משתמש בכסף. הגזבר צריך להיות אשם מיד

עלה בדעתי איך אפשר לענות על השאלה. אני חושב שרב נחמן חייב להבין את רב הונא בכך שהכסף נחשב כהלוואה, לא כהשאלה של חפץ שבו החפץ נחשב כשייך לבעלים המקורי. שזה לא כמו הלוואה שבה הכסף שייך ללווה אבל הוא צריך להחזיר את אותו הסכום. אז גם רב נחמן וגם רב הונא מבינים שכדי שתהיה מעילה צריך להיות שינוי בעלות או שימוש. זה כמו רב הונא בבא מציעא צ''ט רב הונא אמר השואל גרזן, אם בקע בו, עובר על מעילה, ואם לאו אז לא. אז עכשיו השאלה של רב נחמן הגיונית. אם הכסף שנמסר לחלפן (שלחני) היה הלוואה, אז אם החלפן אינו משתמש אתו , עדיין מכיוון שמדובר בהלוואה, הגזבר צריך לעבור על איסור מעילה מיד