I have gone recently into a local beit midrash that has books from some of the recent great Litvak sages. I have a lot of respect for the depth and thoroughness of their thought. But I am not convinced about the general negative approach they had towards the State of Israel. The so called ''Hareidi'' world still goes with that approach refusing to serve in the IDF and continuing  their constant slander against fry yidden [secular Jews] in the privacy of Shabat meals while pretending ''we are all one happy family'' when they need money from fry yidden.

And I have been looking at some of the halachic decisions of Rav Elyashiv, and the Chazon Ish. I am impressed, but not to the degree of thinking of them as infallible, or innocent of biases--conscious or otherwise,-- certainly nothing approaching of what in common jargon could be called ''Daat Torah''.

And perhaps here I should include my own bias which is totally ''רבינא ורב אשי סוף הוראה'' [''Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the ability to make a halachic decision.''] [That is brought down in the Gemara]. So after Ravina and Rav Ashi [around 500 A.D.] there is no such thing as a ''posek''-- except in the sense of trying to figure out what the Gemara would hold on any legal decision. Of course, some of the final conclusions are already written in the Gemara,  and rules of how to decide are written there. The difficulty is that sometimes these rules contradict. Just for an example in Eruvin, you have the order of which Tana to go by when they argue. In Sanhedrin and Bechorot you have the idea of when a Beit Din makes a mistake when they decide against a ''stam sugia''--subject where the Gemara takes one opinion as a given. The list goes on and on, and it is hard to know of all the rules, which ones the Gemara holds override the others. 

 I have never heard of an idea that because one ii learning Torah, that he is not obligated in some commandment. From where the idea comes from that because some people learn  Torah all the time, therefore they have no responsibility to guard their own lives.  Rather I think this is a smoke screen. The religious simply despise  fry yidden [secular Jews] and would rather see them die, than to serve in the IDF.    it would be different if at least they would be honest. Let them just say they refuse to be anywhere near fry yidden because [according to them] they are all apikorsim/heretics. At least they would be honest. But to lie about what the Torah holds is the most despicable thing to do. That is one of the things that one has no portion in the next world מורה שלא כהלכה to lie about what the Torah holds on purpose.

the above paragraph was written not in an academic style, but for now let me add that i am aware that one who learns torah all the time is not obligated in the three daily prayers, and that in general there is an over arching principle one who is involved in one mitzvah is not obligated in another. however this later  principle only applies to Torah when there is someone else that can do the mitzvah. And in fact I think many people that were learning Torah thought privately that that is the reason  they decided not togo into the Israeli Defense Force. 

there is a ort of problem with pride- that the religious believe they are morally superior to fry yidden. that of course  absurd by reason of how we see them act every single day.  

 I was in a study hall [beit midrash] today and someone asked a question about a woman who became a convert while pregnant. The question was if her daughter can marry a [cohen] priest.  I have no idea why he asked me this question, but it just so happened  that the previous day I was looking at a book containing questions and answers of Rav Elyashiv that happened to have that very question.    It was about a woman that had converted and was pregnant and had lost her documents and then came to Israel and had to convert again. It was clear from the answer of Rav Elyashiv that that daughter is allowed to marry a Cohen [since she was born by a regular Jewish woman].But in another place I noticed Rav Elyashiv bring up this issue in terms of a question if a fetus is part of the mother. Does this depend on that question?     

The issue here is that there are a few types of women that a priest can not marry, e.g. a convert, a woman who has had relations with someone forbidden to her [zona], or a woman who has had relations with someone forbidden to the priesthood, or a divorced woman. 

בבא קמא ל''ד ע''א בבא מציעא ט''ו bava kama page 34. bava mezia pg 15 rav shach laws of robbery chapter 9 law 8. Rav Isar Melzer in laws of theft 7 law 12

 Both Rav Shach in laws of robbery 9 law 8 and Rav Isar Melzer in laws of theft 7 law 12 hold in four places the ''shevach'' [profit, or what grows on the ground] that comes about by effort belongs to the one who did the effort. This Rav Isar Meltzer shows the Rambam holds this way in four places robbery theft, inheritance, loans. My question on this comes from the gemara that one who went into the field of his friend without permission and planted crops. The gemara holds the owner pays only the expense, not profit in afield that is not set aside for planting. Rav Shach answers this that in that case the owner can say my field had a part in the profit. but if so that should apply in all the other four cases that Rav Melzer brings.

[i am being a bit short here. rav isar meltzer goes into great detail about this subject in a few places but the place i brought here is where he delves into this at length. only later did i notice that rav shach says the same sort of principle in the other place i brought here.     ]

 Both רב שך  in הלכות גזילה פרק ט' הלכה ח' and רב איסר מלצר in הלכות גניבה פרק ז הלכה י''ב hold in four places the שבח profit, or what grows on the ground that comes about by effort belongs to the one who did the effort. This רב איסר מלצר shows the רמב''ם holds this way in four places robbery theft, inheritance, loans. My question on this comes from the גמרא that one who went into the field of his friend without permission and planted crops. The גמרא holds the owner pays only the expense, not profit in a field that is not set aside for planting. רב שך answers this that in that case the owner can say my field had a part in the profit. but if so that should apply in all the other four cases that רב איסר מלצר brings.

גם רב שך בהלכות גזילה פרק ט' הלכה ח' וגם רב איסר מלצר בהלכות גניבה פרק ז' הלכה י''ב מחזיקים בארבעה מקומות את הרווח השבח, או מה שצומח על הקרקע שבא במאמץ שייך למי שעשה את המאמץ. רב איסר מלצר מראה שהרמב''ם מחזיק כך בארבעה מקומות שוד גניבה, ירושה, הלוואות. שאלתי על כך באה מהגמרא שאדם הלך לשדה של חברו בלא רשות ושתל יבולים. הגמרא גורסת שהבעלים משלם רק את ההוצאה, לא רווח בשדה שאינו מופרש לנטיעה. רב שך עונה על זה שבמקרה כזה הבעלים יכול לומר שלקרקע שלי היה חלק ברווח. אבל אם כן זה אמור לחול בכל ארבעת המקרים האחרים שמביא רב איסר מלצר

Maybe there is a fine thin line that one crosses from learning Torah for its own sake

 How could learning Torah have become a money making profession? I assume I am not the only one who has noticed the Mishna in Pirkei Avot about not making Torah into a shovel to dig with or an ax to chop with. In fact, my experience with most people that use Torah to make their living tend to use Torah as an ax to chop people with.  It might be that what I am not seeing here is the fact that everything has its proper measure.  SO we find the Kesef Mishna defending giving money to yeshivot on that very same place in the Rambam where the Rambam brings the prohibition of learning Torah in order to get charity. Maybe there is some subtle distinction that I am not seeing. Maybe there is a fine thin line that one crosses from learning Torah for its own sake and then from lack of options one is forced to depend on charity in order to continue learning -- between that and one who sets out on purpose to use Torah in order to gain a paid position/[The reason for this is any sizable population in Israel can form a political party, and no government  can be formed without 61 seats in the Kneset. So to get the religious parties to join, they get offered money. And besides that there is also the automatic funds that the government gives to yeshivot. If that money would be going only to places that actually learn Torah like Ponovitch i would have no complaints, but 90% of yeshivot were made in the first place in order to get a ''ptur' [release] from serving in the army, not to learn Torah.'

My feeling about this is that somewhere a line has been crossed to make learning Torah or teaching it for the sake of making money seem legitimate. In Israel, there are political parties whose sole purpose is to get money out of the government budget. Judges get money in spite of  the halacha '' כל דיין שנוטל שכר לדון בל דיניו בטילים'',  ''Any judge who receives pay to judge, all of his judgements are null and void.''

Just for the sake of clarity let me admit I was part of the kollel of the Mir Yeshiva in NY for years and I probably would have been happy to continue learning Torah in the Kollel of Rav Ernster in Safed until the problem of using Torah to make money started to bother my conscious and stopped. Then for some years I went with bitachon/TRUST IN GOD--just trust in God. and that was fine for about 7 years until I fell from trust in GOD and decided to seek out a way to make a living. But I did  not want the old way of using Torah for money, so went to major in Physics at Polytechnic Institute of NYU. In the meantime other things  came up--like a possibility to go to Uman for Rosh Hashanah--so I ended up in Uman for years learning Gemara with my learning partner David Bronson. --eventually getting back to Israel --still doing Physics and Gemara and Rav Shach's Avi Ezri..  

[I have mentioned before that I consider the herem of the Gra to be valid, and yet I do not think that Rav Nahman would be included. This I concluded after looking at the several letters of excommunication issued in Vilna. The Signature of the Gra is on the top of the second one. ]

 I would like to mention here a great book I have been looking at recently,- the Even haAzel אבן האזל  by ר' איסר מלצר Rav Isar Meltzer who was a friend of Rav Shach. This book fills in a lot of details which you might not get in the Avi Ezri. For instance, I have been looking at chap 7 halacha 12 of Monetary Damages. I think it is clear  that Rav Shach goes into some of these details in laws of Robbery, but the book of Rav Meltzer goes into greater  detail. [In Laws of Robbery 9 , halacha 8 Rav Shach comes to the same sort of basic principles that Rav Isar Melzer arrives at.   ]

I think that there is a lot of quite amazing ideas in the books of Rav Nahman of Breslov, but the fact that his name is associated with Breslov ruins the effect. Rav Nahman himself must have been aware of this problem when he wrote to his followers in Breslov in one of his five letters ''קצתי בישיבת ברסלב'' I have become disgusted with yeshivat breslov'' [or perhaps it could be translated ''I am disgusted with dwelling in breslov.] 

FOR his ideas really do not work well unless taken in a straight Litvak yeshiva atmosphere of straight Torah. but outside of that context, they tend to take people off into insane tangents. 

I found the approach to learning in Conversations of R.Nahman chap. 76 the most helpful, i.e., learning fast-- saying the words and going on. This helped a lot when I went to Polytechnic Institute of NY University.