I don't think anyone ought to be a layman in science

 The problem I see in science for laymen, is that I don't think anyone ought to be a layman. The only reason there are laymen in science is that people have not heard of the way of learning fast--saying the words and going on. Then finishing the book in that way four times. Then going back to do review in depth. If people would do this, they would automatically become way above laymen level--even if the level of expert might still be a bit farther away. [But I think one needs to focus on real science, not pseudo science--see steven dutch's site for explanation of how to tell the difference. And even then it can be hard to know what is worthwhile as opposed to dead ends. Dead ends are not pseudo science -but still paths that have already been looked into and lead nowhere. ]

The fast learning applies also to the two Talmuds and all the midrashim, and along with that an in-depth session --as is the general practice of the great Litvak yeshivot.  

Gitin page 5. Rav Shach writes in Laws of Divorce 7 halacha 1.

 I am pretty sure about something Rav Shach writes in Laws of Divorce 7 halacha 1 so I feel free to write down what I understand so far on condition that I might have to revise this. The issue is why a carrier does not have to say, "It was written and signed before me" in Israel. To Tosfot, the Sages were lenient because of an aguna. [That is a woman that is still attached to her first husband and thus can't remarry ] To the Ran and Rambam the reason the carrier does not have to say this in Israel is because it is not like laws of money. The difference is a  carrier of the wife outside of Israel. To the Rambam, that carrier would not be required to say, "It was written and signed before me"; but to Tosphot, that carrier would. The reason being the requirement is we are afraid the husband will come and say the document was forged. The Gemara page 5 side b is a proof  to Tosphot that if the carrier did not say it, then the validity of the document needs to be established by witnesses, or else it is not valid, So outside of Israel we are not lenient because of aguna, and the document needs validation from the law that all documents need validation before any action can be taken by them, not just a worry about the husband might come and claim  it is not valid, So the reason for validation is like all document of monetary issues like Tophot, and not like the Ran and Rambam.

I admit that this requires some more thought, however it is what I think Rav Shach is saying,

[If can figure out what Rav Shach is saying any better than this, you are doing better than me. ]

_______________________________________________________________

  רב שך writes in גירושין ז' א'. The issue is why a שליח does not have to say, "It was written and signed before me" in Israel. To תוספות, the חכמים were lenient because of an עגונה. [That is a woman that is still attached to her first husband and thus can't remarry ] To the ר''ן and רמב''ם the reason the שליח does not have to say this in Israel is because it is not like laws of money. The difference is a  שליח קבלה outside of Israel. To the רמב''ם that שליח קבלה would not be required to say "It was written and signed before me"; but to תוספןת that שליח would. The reason being the requirement is we are afraid the husband will come and say the גט was forged. The גמרא גיטין ה' is a proof  to תוספות that if the שליח did not say it, then the validity of the גט needs to be established by witnesses, or else it is not valid, So outside of Israel, we are not lenient  because of עגונה, and the גט needs validation from the law that all documents שנפרעים שלא בפניו need validation before any action can be taken by them, not just a חשש THAT the husband might come and claim  it is not valid, So the reason for קיום is like all document of monetary issues like תוספות, and not like the ר''ן and רמב''ם

________________________________________________________________________

רב שך כותב בגירושין ז' א'. העניין הוא מדוע שליח לא צריך לומר "נכתב ונחתם לפני" בישראל. לתוספות, החכמים היו מקלים בגלל עגונה. [זאת אישה שעדיין קשורה לבעלה הראשון ולכן אינה יכולה להתחתן בשנית] לר"ן ולרמב"ם הסיבה שהשליח לא צריך לומר זאת בישראל היא כי זה לא כמו הלכות של כסף. ההבדל הוא שליח קבלה מחוץ לישראל. לרמב''ם לא יידרש שליח קבלה לומר "נכתב ונחתם לפני"; אלא לתוספות כן צריך. הסיבה היא הדרישה היא שאנו חוששים שהבעל יבוא ויגיד שהגט מזויף. הגמרא גיטין ה' הוכחה לתוספות שאם לא אמר השליח אז צריך לקבוע את תוקפו של הגט ע"י עדים, או אינו תקף. אז מחוץ לישראל אין אנו מקילים מחמת עגונה, והגט צריך אישור מהחוק כמו כל המסמכים שנפרעים שלא בפניו שצריכים תוקף לפני שניתן יהיה לבצע כל פעולה על ידם, לא רק חשש שהבעל עלול לבוא ולטעון שזה לא תקף. אז הסיבה לקיום היא כמו כל מסמך של נושאים כספיים כמו תוספות, ולא כמו הר''ן והרמב''ם

fear of religious leaders

 I have a horrible fear of religious leaders having any say in government or in law. as you might have seen in this blog -- my reason is that I do not think they  understand the Torah and teach it, but rather use it as a cover for their own profit and pleasure. However one can claim against me that maybe they understand Torah better. I answer that might be so, but that does not help their position since in any case I have the stronger claim of experience  --knowing by experience that religious leaders are creeps. However, I do admit to rare exceptions like the roshei yeshiva of Litvak yeshivot who definitely know Torah better than anyone else, and also that life in those great yeshivot is in fact whole some and decent.

It is hard to see any core principle in Israel's legal system or political system.

 I realized that the problem in Israel in both the political sense and legal sense is an idea in the Talmud. that is a middle position between two opposing opinions does not count if it is just make shift [pollyanna--ad hoc.] you need a middle position that has a reason to it for taking one opinion in one case and the opposite in another case. 

The first case is legal. The original Israeli Supreme Court was a mixture of some who took the English law of the time of the English Mandate-alone. Some tempered that with the law of the Gemara. [Some went more in the direction of Code Napoleon or Roman Law. One of the secularists was both shomer mitzvot [kept the commandments] and a member of Mapai--the Ben Gurion mainly Communistic party.]  Same with government. No uniting line. Likud--straight John Locke. Labor--straight socialism. 

The problem with all this is the lack of a unifying line--core principle. England had common law, belief in Christianity, the importance of one monarch, the Magna Carta and Provisions of Oxford. The USA had a similar set of core principles. The USSR for better or worse had a core principle-Marxism.  It is hard to see any core principle in Israel's legal system or political system.-  or even if there could be.

One thing that is curious is that in Torah law a judge who gets monetary reward for making a decision-all his decisions are null and void. דיין שנוטל שכר לדון כל דיניו בטלים that means a beit din of rabanim is automatically null and void by the law of the Torah. If you add to that the fact that one is not allowed to get paid for learning Torah as it says in Pirkei Avot, nor get paid for teaching Torah as it say in the gemara in reference to teaching TORAH that GOD says  מה אני בחימם אף אתם בחינם "Just like I taught Torah for free , you also must teach Torah for free"--adding all that together it is hard to see how anyone could make money off of Torah.  [Or maybe that is the very idea in the first place? ] 

So you could have a government but you could no have anything like religious judges or teachers getting paid by anyone- not the state--nor individuals.

and  that is a good thing. as for getting rid religious teachers, all i have to say is good riddance. as rav nahman o eloquently termed them '' Torah scholars that are demons'' LeM I:12

 The basic approach to the ARI [R. Isaac Luria] that I hold with is the Reshash--Sar Shalom Sharabi. In fact I prayed with the small sidur of the Reshash for years, and later I found the larger one.  But at some point I decided to go on the path of R. Akiva who according to the gemara ''entered into the higher worlds in peace and left in peace.''--Not that I have anything against being in a state of ''devekut'' [attachment to the infinite light''], but rather I felt one needs the proper ''vessels'' to be able to hold the light-or risk breaking of the vessels. 

[I Also agree with the approach to the Ari of Rav Yaakov Abuchazeira and the Ramchal. Rav Yaakov is the simple ''peshat'' [explanation], while the Reshash is Tosphot. The Ramchal fills in some detail and provides a wider context]

The Litvak Yeshiva World certainly learns TORAH pretty well. There are however a few flaws that i would like to point out. (1) THERE is a lot of seeking ''chumrot'' extra restrictions that often have no basis in halacha at all or little basis. And that leads [as it always must] to ignoring actual requirements of TORAH. (2) THERE is ignoring or ignorance of the herem of the GRA. And though I might be blamed on this same account -but that does not make it okay. (Beside that in my opinion Rav Nahman of Breslov would not be included in the second herem in which the actual signature of the GRA appears at the head of the page.) (3) But it still is a nice fact about the Litvak world that there is an emphasis on not adding and not subtracting from the commandments. That much I have to admit 

When a person thinks about things where reason by its very nature is incapable, these same people go nuts.

It is easy for smart people to see the mistakes of the dumb. But they can also fall into mistakes by being too smart. --It is like the parable of the tortoise and the hare. The swiftness of the tortoise was its own cause of being too slow. So in the Midrash we find the mother of Samuel the Prophet praying that her son should not be too smart nor too dumb. Philosophers have at the disadvantage of being too smart==as Kant himself pointed out in that when the mind ventures into areas of things in themselves self  contradictions arise. and Kant applied that insight to the human personality--when a person thinks about things where reason by its very nature is incapable, these same people go nuts.  

You can see this limitation in Hegel where his system does not recognize the limits of reason. [His system can be likened to PLOTINUS, HEGEL starts from the material world and by the dialectic rises to the Absolute  Spirit. But his system ends with what Plotinus would call THE LOGOS. But plotinus did not stop there. There is something higher than logos, i.e. THE ONE.]