''All who add to the mitzvot subtracts from them.'' ''כל המוסיף גורע''

 Even though there is some reason for a woman to wait seven  clean days, but that this depends on a  custom  brought in the Gemara that ''the daughters of Israel wait seven clean days even for a drop like a mustard seed'' is not really a good reason-- because to the Bach that means the color of mustard. A different reason would be like the  the Rambam that  straight nida blood [mentral cycle] and ziva [blood seen not at the regular time of seeing.]blood depend on an order of days that starts from the first time she sees blood-i.e. 7-11, 7--11,etc. But that  is not the way most Rishonim count the days. To most Rishonim each time a woman sees blood starts the start of day of nida. [That means the way to count is thus. Seeing blood on one day after a regular time since the last time is the start of days of nida. And days of nida are only seven days. If she see once or twice or the whole seven days makes no difference; she goes into a natural body of water the night after the seventh day. But if she sees on the eight day, that is a small zava-- i.e., she waits one day and goes into a natural body of water. If she sees again, that is still a small zava. But if she see three times during the 11 day  stretch of time after that seven starting time means she is a large zava and needs to count seven clean days.] And my general approach is that there is no reason to look for extra restrictions. If someone wants to be extra strict, that is fine. But they ought not make that seem like an obligation for everyone. [See the Ramban quoted in the Tur who counts the days in this way..] 

boys are made of snips, snails and puppy dog tails

For a man to call himself a woman can not change his molecular structure.  Since boys are made of snips, snails etc., while girls are made of sucrose and spice, that that DNA molecular structure can not be changed by calling it a different name. It would take a great deal of effort to turn a snail into sugar or spice. Even the basic elements are different.

reference: What are little boys made of?

What are little boys made of?
  Snips, snails
  And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
  Sugar and spice
  And everything nice [or "all things nice"]
That's what little girls are made of

 A case of doubt about 4 or five damages (five oxen for one ox and five sheep for one sheep ) is an argument between the Rambam and the Raavad. The argument is if the owner of the injured ox has grabbed the ox that caused the damage. To the Rambam [laws of theft 2. law 12] he can keep what he grabbed, but the Raavad has several questions on that. It is more than what he damaged, and there is a doubt so no court that has authority to decide. The answer to the first question,  Rav Shach suggests that only half damages we say if he grabbed  he can keep [which is an open gemara- a person that grabs half damages can keep it until the court convenes and decides the case ], but in our case of four or five damages not. 

so rav shach seems to be saying that  in our case  of 4 or 5 times the damage would the raavad hold you take away the ox if it has been grabbed==even if not a doubt. only if it is a case of half damages that you do not take away the grabbed object. i mean to say that rav shach does not refer to the aspect that our case is one of doubt.  

For some reason, Rav Isar Meltzer did not suggest this answer, but rather refers this subject to an argument between the Rosh and Rabbainu Yona in Ketuboth pg 20. [paragraph 13 in the Rosh]-

Also he mentioned to look at the Rosh in Bava Kama 15 [paragraph 20 in the Rosh]. The Rosh brings there Rav Meir HaLevi who held תופס חצי נזק אין מוציאים מידו ( We do not take half damages away from one who grabs them) except for 1/2 damages-- which would work fine here for the Raavad except for the fact that the Raavad elsewhere in the Rambam holds we do not take half damages away from one who grabs them in general. So Isar Meltzer says the Raavad holds only in a case of doubt do we take away the  half damages because it is like a guarantee for a loan. and in the case of doubt for a guarantee for a loan we would hold  we do not take  away from one who grabs them. But here its is a ''kenas'' punishment for the damages, not monetary.

 The Litvak yeshiva world i have complaints about but also deep respect. The Torah Greats were of course all from the Litvaks--Reb Chaim of Brisk, Rav Shach, Rav Kinyevsky. But there is a general ignorance of the signature of the Gra on the famous letter of excommunication.-- Plus there is a lot of disrespect towards the State of Israel. There is also a sort of ''super-organizim'' complex about it, a kind of group mentality which I tend to dismiss as not being in accord with the Torah. we are all Jews and all of u are obligated in all the commandments=especially learning Torah--the Written and Oral Torah. There is no subdivision in Israel except that some keep some commandments and others keep others. The obligations between man and man is the are where fry Yidden do best. Learning and keeping the obligations between man and God is where the Litvaks do best. There is no aspect of moral or mental superiority by which group one is born into. Everything depends on one' personal commitment and free will to do God's s Will. Even being born Jewish means nothing but having to keep more commandments. You might note that the entire book of Nahum was a prophecy given to Ninve--the capital city of the Assyrian Empire--a sworn enemy of Israel. 

Trying to introduce Socialism into Western Democracies

 The Fabian society took the approach of trying to introduce Socialism into Western Democracies slowly and also by stealth. This stealth approach is the reason people need to have certain values that they will not compromise on in any circumstances. In general, a balanced approach with compromise is the way to go. But there also need to be values and principles that you will not compromise on in any circumstances-what so ever. [I personally try to take the basic path of my parents and the Gra as providing the most essential principles that I try not to compromise on.]

 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.