the Written and Oral Law [the Law of Moses and the Talmud] along with Physics and Metaphysics are the necessary and sufficient conditions

In math you have necessary and sufficient conditions. I think the Written and Oral Law [the Law of Moses and the Talmud] along with Physics and Metaphysics are the necessary and sufficient conditions  to come to what one must come to in this world.
This ideas come from the Rambam who considered Physics and Metaphysics of Aristotle to be what the Gemara was referring to in מעשה בראשית ומעשה מרכבה

I do not expand the set outside of the Rambam's definition. But I also do not limit the list to only the Oral and Written Law. I do think one needs those two additional subjects from the fact that I have seen the need for them in people that ignore those subjects.

Simchas Torah in a Lithuanian Yeshiva

Simchas Torah is really a yeshiva festival.  Simchas Torah in my first Litvak yeshiva in New York was an experience enough to last a lifetime.
The basic idea is that when you spend the whole year trying your best to learn and keep the Oral and Written Law, then when Simchas Torah comes along, it is a deep experience inside you. The dancing is simply an outflow of an internal source of holiness. It comes from the inner self.

What you generally see on Simchas Torah is on the other hand mainly a farce. It is making a show of dancing trying to show joy that is not internal.

My recommendation is not to go to any synagogue on Simchas Torah. Either stay home, or find an authentic Lithuanian yeshiva. Either find the real thing, or nothing. But don't go for fake joy.


The ingredients of an authentic yeshiva are simple but not sufficient. You need a kind of spirit of Torah to make it work..

Islam by its very nature tends to violence.

My impression is that Islam by its very nature tends to violence. I mean to say that let's take as an opposite example a Catholic nun. If she becomes more and more religious she will becomes more and more spiritual. Or take a Buddhist monk. He will mediate more and more. But Islam is different. The more religious a person is the more they will follow the example of the founder of their religion.

Natural rights

Natural rights was a development from Natural Law. Natural Law was introduced I think by Saadia Gaon and later Maimonides. Then Aquinas developed it into a whole system--which I sadlly enough did not get a chance to study. In any case this led eventually to the John Locke concept of individual rights as being things the government could but should not interfere with. From what I can tell most people want their freedom. This seems clear. But Brett Stevens is noting when rights get out of hand to be demands for free stuff and calling these demands rights.

So my feeling is that rights are important but as limitations of what the government can do--not of what it must provide.

[The basic John Locke idea is the individual gives up certain aspects of his rights in order to create a political entity that is safe to live in. But not all his rights. See the Two Treatises for details.
A later note: I mean to say here that John Locke basing himself on Aquinas and Hobbes made the jump from natural law to natural rights. He was also thinking of state of nature. But his state of nature was slightly different than Hobbes. In Locke's state of nature man has all his natural right and the right to enforce them. But in order to live in  society he then gives up some of his right and prerogatives to the government in exchange for the safety of living in a civil society. It is a social contract theory.]

I would love to go into this more but I really recommend to people to learn the Two Treaties by John Locke. 

Leftist agenda

Leftist agenda was the default position of philosophers in the USA. On the other extreme you had Heidegger and that kind of approach did not seem right to Middle Americans who fought the Nazis. Philosophers were simply  not very smart as the affair with the NY Physics professor that got a essay of complete nonsense  but with the right jargon published in the most prestigious  philosophy journal. It took a long time for people with real talent to start noticing the problems with academic philosophy. The job of philosophers is to learn an obtuse jargon which inspires awe. People think, "Gee golly, you must really smart to understand that stuff!"

Suka [a booth] and the festival of Booths

ענייני סוכה
 ) במשנה הראשונה בסוכה הגמרא אומרת שאם הסכך והצל שווים על גבי הסוכה אז הצל הוא יותר בתחתית כך שהיא כשרה, כדאמרי אינשי כזוזא מלעילא כאסתירא מלבר. אם אתה במדבר ואתה מנסה לזהות מטוס קרב מתמרן בשמיים, הדרך לעשות את זה היא לחפש צלה. הסיבה לכך היא הצל הוא תמיד הרבה יותר גדול מהמטוס עצמו.  התמוה על זה הוא העובדה שנראה שהגמרא שוקלת צל על הרצפה כדי להיות הגורם המכריע בשאלה האם הסוכה כשרה או לא. זה אומר שלהיות שהם שווים למעלה הוא בסדר כי בתחתית הצל הוא יותר. על פי היגיון זה אז סככת העליון יכולה להיות הרבה פחותה מהצל בגלל שבתחתית הצל של הסכך יורחב. זה אומר גמרא זו היא חידה כי זה אומר על גבי סכך והצל צריך להיות שווה. הפתרון שלי הוא העובדה שאין פתרון מתמטי מדויק לבעיה של עקיפה. אני מתכוון לומר שלכל צל תחום אחד שהוא כהה ואזור אחר שהוא חצי אור וחצי כהה. האזור הכהה יכול להאריך עד אינסוף. אז כשאתה אומר הצל בתחתית צריך להיות יותר מן האור, לא ברור מה זה אומר. האזור של הצל יכול להיות אינסופי. לכן הגמרא מחזיקה שרק כאשר הצל וסכך על גבי סוכה שווים זה כשר. אתה אולי יכול גם להציע לקחת את האזור הכהה כגורם מפתח. אפשר לקרוא לזה מאה אחוז כהה ואז כשזה הופך להיות ארבעים ותשעה אחוזים  לקרא לזה לא צל. אבל הגמרא לא בחרה בדרך הזו.

Mainly I was bothered by the problem of the shadow being more that the light. The problem I wanted to deal with in that book was that as a rule when one is in a desert and looking out for an enemy spy plane he does not look for the plane but rather for the shadow which is always much easier to spot than the plane because it is much much larger.  i really do not remember much but the problem I think is that the Gemara seems to imply that the Suka is kosher if the shadow is more than the sun on  the floor. My answer is based on Physics that the solution to the problem of diffraction is not mathematically rigorous. It is a approximation. So in fact the areas are not rigorously defined.

You have I kind of remember two areas of shadow.  The one that is a mix can go off to infinity. So in fact the Gemara settles on a kind of approximation.


I do not have the Gemara but it seems that the Gemara takes the idea of the shadow as being more than the sun on the bottom floor as a proof that on top the shadow and sun are equal. But why would that be called Kosher? Should not the shadow on top be more? To answer this I think you could say the bottom is the determining factor

There is no such thing as a layman. You either know it or you don't.

The difference between a layman and an expert is something that I was aware of from a  early age. In my home my father was very much into STEM. In particular he got his Masters from Cal Tech and  went into aerospace engineering. His specialty was inventing stuff.  In any case  in our home e were getting month a magazine that was directed towards laymen.
I do not think I ever said this to my parents but my degree of frustration was immense. I would read some article about science and realize that there is no such thing as a  layman. You either know it or you don't.


But I had no idea how to cross the barrier from not knowing to knowing. I think the first hint of how to cross that barrier came from my first year in yeshiva in Shar Yashuv [New York, Far Rockaway.] There I encountered the first most frustrating thing that every yeshiva bachur encounters--the fact that the yeshiva spent about a week or two per page of Gemara. So one "Zeman" Session from October until April would be spent on one chapter of Gemara--about 15 pages.

Only after much time I began to realize the important foundational principle involve here: To know a basic component of any subject takes total immersion in that subdivision for at least 6 months.