Three Russian authors are where Russia contributed most to understanding of the human soul, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. NOT in Psychology nor philosophy and  these writers surpassed all the shallow pseudo philosophy and pseudo-psycholgy of the West.

The reason is not just their understanding of the human soul but also their refusal to reduce man to a bundle of urges. The philosophical man--the combination of mind and body [no soul] never existed. The economic man--the rational economic agent never existed. The psychological man -the team engine who sublimates his sexual desire to produce alternative energy never exited. These are figments of the sick imaginations of Freud, Marx, and economic professors. 

No meta narrative can explain the human soul. The problem is the intellectuals who believe they know the right narrative and want to impose it on everyone else.

Rav Nahman said --"to say the words in order and automatically one will understand, And even if he does not understand immediately eventually he will understand

This comes from an insight of Rav Nahman about learning in conversation 76 on the conversations of Rav Nahman. But I combine it with the few Rishonim that agree with the importance  of math and physics. And I say that the idea that only talented people can learn math and physics is wrong. I say with the way of learning that Rav Nahman explained in the conversations 76 even a block of wood can know math and physics.

Rav Nahman said --"to say the words in order and automatically one will understand, And even if he does not understand immediately eventually he will understand.''

But he did not apply this to Physics but rather to learning Torah as is brought in the Talmud Tractate Shabat page 63. Still I learned late to discover that some rishonim hold of the importance of Physics and Metaphysics as you can see in the Mishna Torah chapter III:" The subjects discussed in the first four chapters of the Mishna Torah are in the category of learning Gemara."  

But are these the only things to learn? Well, to the Gra the seven wisdoms are needed for understanding Torah {Trivium and Quadrium) but besides that? I would say besides these everything else is Bitul Torah   

[I did read in high school and later in Shar Yashuv in NY but i can not tell how much of that did me much good. Maybe it did or maybe not--. The books  were what was required in an average  American public high school. But  most of my time was spent on the violin and piano. I did not get into Gemara until my first year after high school at Shar Yashuv [3.5 years there and then another 3.5 years at the Mir in NY. But there I did mainly Gemara. ]

Moses asked the two tribes that wanted to sit out the war "Your brothers go up to war and you will sit here?" People ought to volunteer for the IDF Israel Defense Force

 אחיכם יעלו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה Moses asked the two  tribes that wanted to sit out the war "Your brothers go up to war and you will sit here?" The idea was that the area beyond the Jordan river was empty. Sihon and Og had attacked the children of Israel and lost the war, so that whole area was empty and 2.5 tribes wanted to stay and settle there while the rest of Israel would enter the land of Canaan to fight and settle. Moses did not like the idea of these 2.5 tribes  staying behind. [Two tribes asked originally but in the end 2.5 settled there] [Two tribes asked originally, but in the end 2.5 settled there]. The end result was they in fact joined in the war, but afterwards went back to settle that land beyond the Jordan River. However I have never been able to figure this out very well since in fact the whole land was not conquered until King David conquered Jerusalem many many years later; and the five cities of the Plishtim also were not settled  as far as I can tell. 

[Besides that, I think it is best to take care of the Iranian problem before it gets out of hand. Like Alexander the Great said when he was asked how he reached his success. He said because when there was anything to take care of he took care of it right away without delay.  That applies here. Better take care of the problem before it is too late. I would not worry if anyone wants to help. If the USA wants to help then fine, but if not Iran is a threat to all Western Civilization and need to be put in its place.  

 Even though learning Torah is the most important of all commandments (as it says in the mishna in Peah  ת''ת כנגד כולם  "Learning  Torah weighs more that all the commandments,'') still I do not think that this value remains if one learns for money. That is to say I think the entire value of the mitzvah disappears when one gets paid to learn. This opinion you can see in Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers) chapter four where the Rambam explains what the mishna says about not making Torah into a shovel to dig with that if one does so he takes his life from the world and the Rambam there in his commentary explains: ''from the world i.e., the world to come.''

Serving God is not a money making profession and those that claim that it is are enemies of God and enemies of Torah for its own sake.  [I  mean to say that no matter what, you need to be sure of DIVINE SIMPLICITY--that God does not share of any traits that any human can even imagine. He is totally ''other'' and not a composite.   

difference between Peter and Paul.

 I have thought for along time that there is an essential difference between Peter and Paul. At least there must be between James and Paul. However, recently I noticed that Peter recommends the letters of Paul. Perhaps Peter was unaware of the later letters where Paul becomes more and more against keeping the commandments? [At first Paul did not want the idea of peter that gentiles need to become jewish-by means of brit mila [circumcision] and dipping in a fresh body of water and accepting to keep the commandments. ] in later letters Paul gets more and more insistent that Sinai is Hagar [mother of Ishmael.] Nullification of the commandments has been a problem ever since then until now. Thomas Aquinas tried to answer this basic contradiction with (I think) little success. [from what i recall i think Aquinas writes that the eternal laws of Torah are not the services in the Temple and similar what could be called rituals.] 

[This was the one issue that Saadia Gaon brought up in his book Faiths and Doctrines along with the problem of the Trinity. The Trinity is not in the New Testament --not even in Paul.] [HOWEVER if what the claim about the Trinity is along the lines of what the ARI said about the patriarchs, Moses, Aaron, Josef and David that they are souls of Emanation [Azilut] then I do not see any issue. But i am not sure what the claim is. 

getting through the Oral and Written Law.

 Even though I am really not up to doing this myself, but I would like to remind people of what the Gra held by in terms of getting through the Oral and Written Law. But I do not think that people are aware of what that entails. You have to recall what the Rambam wrote in his letter to Yemen ''Just like one can not add or subtract from the Written Law, so one can't add nor subtract from the Oral Law.'' All books written after the completion of the two Talmuds are not the Oral Law. They might be ''second hand'' Oral Law in so far as they are commentary, but not the actual thing in itself.

So I think people ought to have a session every day of doing a half  page of Gemara with Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam. Then the Yerushalmi in the same way. --Plus getting through the midrashim.

However this whole thing I mean mainly for the afternoon. The morning I think should go for in depth learning with the Avi Ezri, Reb Chaim [Brisk], Naftali Troup and the other basic Litvak sages. 

[The Oral Law is the Two Talmuds, Tosephta, Midrash Rabah, Midrash Tanchuma, Sifrei and Sifra,  ]

[When to fit into this the math and physics? I would say that is best in the afternoon, since the morning in-depth sessions are the most important as my son Izhak told me many times (about the importance of in depth learning).  ]

Why is learning Torah important--see vol 4 of the Nefesh Hachaim by Reb Chaim of Voloshin-a disciple of the Gra

I might mention here that objective morality is not something that one can know without this-- as the Rambam showed in the Guide (that even Avraham Avinu would not have known Natural Law unless it was revealed to him from above). 

beginning of the second chapter in Gitin

To Rav Chisda if a carrier of a doc of divorce says, "It was written before me, but only one witness signed before me" and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid -that the doc is not valid. Rava says the doc is valid and that is the law.  Rav Shach [laws of  divorce 7 law 13] suggests the reason of Rav Chisda is because he is holding like the sages (that disagree with R. Yehoshua ben Karcha) who hold testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. The law however is like Rava. It seems difficult to me to have an argument between Amoraim [Gemara sages] dependent on an argument between Tenaim [sages of the Mishna]. But Rava agrees that testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. but he holds you do not need in our case that the testimony should be together because they are only testifying for the validity of the get, not the act of divorce.

[That problem is why does Rav Chisda say if a carrier of a doc of divorce says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the doc is not valid. Is not that by itself validation of the doc/"get" like it says in bava batra 165b ע''א בע''פ וע''א בכתב מצטרפים --that is the carrier himself saw the writing and another signed it.

The question here is there is a clear parallels from Bava Batra 165 to our situation. The answer of Rav Shach is a bit different of a situation of one witness in the morning and one in the evening.

And at any rate, it is odd that the stam Gemara in Bava Batra holds one witness verbally and the other in writing are joined together while both Rav Hisda and Rava in our Gemara in Gitin hold there is no establishing of the get with the testimony of the carrier and the witness on the get. Maybe this is a disagreement between sugiot?

 ________________________________________________________________________

To רב חיסדא if a carrier of a גט says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the גט is not valid. רבא says the גט is valid and that is the law.  רב שך [הלכות גירושין ז' הלכה י''ג] suggests the reason of רב חיסדא is because he is holding like the sages (that disagree with  ר' יהושוע בן קרחא) who hold testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but not together is not valid (עדות מיוחדת). The law however is like רבא. It seems difficult to me to have an argument between אמוראים dependent on an argument between תנאים.

But רבא agrees that testimony that was witnessed by two witnesses but they did not testify together is not valid. But he holds you do not need in our case that the testimony should be together because they are only testifying for the validity of the גט, not the act of divorce.  

[That problem is why does Rav Chisda say if a carrier of a doc of divorce says it was written before me but only one witness signed before me and there are two witnesses testifying that the other signature is valid that the doc is not valid. Is not that by itself validation of the doc/"get" like it says in בבא בתרא קס''ה עד אחד בעל פה ועד אחד בכתב מצטרפים that is the carrier himself saw the writing and another signed it.

The question here is there is a clear parallels from בבא בתרא קס''ה to our situation. The answer of רב שך is a bit different of a situation of one witness in the morning and one in the evening.

And at any rate, it is hard to understand why that the סתם גמרא in בבא בתרא holds one witness verbally and the other in writing are joined together while both רב חיסדא and רבא in our גמרא in גיטין hold there is no קיוםof the גט with the testimony of the carrier and the witness on the גט. Maybe this is a disagreement between סוגיות?

 

לרב חיסדא אם נושא גט אומר נכתב לפני אבל רק עד אחד חתם לפני ויש שני עדים המעידים שהחתימה השנייה תקפה שאין הגט תקף.(או כולו בקיום הגט או כולו בתקנת חכמים) רבא אומר שהגט תקף וזה הדין. רב שך מציע שהטעם של רב חיסדא הוא משום שהוא מחזיק כמו החכמים (החולקים על ר' יהושוע בן קרחא המחזיקים שעדות שהעידו עליה שני עדים אך לא ראו את העניין ביחד אינה תקפה (עדות מיוחדת). החוק לעומת זאת הוא כמו רבא. נראה לי שקשה לומר שוויכוח בין אמוראים תלוי בוויכוח בין תנאים

אבל רבא מסכים שאין תוקף לעדות שהעידו שני עדים אך לא העידו יחד. אבל הוא גורס אתה לא צריך בענייננו שהעדות תהיה ביחד כי הם רק מעידים על תוקף הגט, לא על מעשה הגירושין

 [הבעיה היא מדוע רב חיסדא אומר או כולו בקיום הגט או כל בתקנת חכמים. האם אין זה כשלעצמו אימות של הגט?כמו שכתוב בבבא בתרא קס''ה עד אחד בעל פה ועד אחד בכתב מצטרפים שזהו המוביל עצמו ראה את כתיבת הגט ואחר חתם עליו.]

השאלה כאן היא שיש הקבלה ברורה מבבא בתרא קס''ה למצב שלנו. תשובת רב שך היא קצת שונה שמביא ממצב של עד אחד בבוקר ואחד בערב

ומכל מקום קשה להבין מדוע שהגמרא בבבא בתרא מחזיק עד אחד בעל פה והשני בכתב מחוברים יחדיו ואילו רב חיסדא ורבא בגמרא שלנו בגיטין מחזיקים אין קיום של הגט עם עדות המוביל והעד על הגט. אולי זו מחלוקת בין סוגיות