There were plenty of books of mysticism during the middle ages and the zohar brings a lot of them. that i why and how Rav Yaakov Emden [the Yaavatz] explains the Zohar. He says some parts of it are from authentic writings of ancient mystics before the time of Moshe Deleon. So while I am not in favor of learning the Zohar, I am in favor of learning the Ari [Isaac Luria].who concentrates on the parts of the Zohar that were ancient teachings. But that is only in connection with Gemara and Tosphot

 Dough prepared to be fed to the dogs that guard the sheep is not kosher for the night of Passover, but if the shepherds eat from it, it is okay to fulfill one's obligation for the first night of Passover since it is kept from water. Thus regular flour is ok to make maza from it on the first night of Passover. [Rambam. Laws of Hametz and Maza 6 law 5]

my point is the dough is  meant for dogs.so even if the shepards eat from it, it was only guarded to not let water fall on it so that it could be given to dogs to eat. That is--so that it should not get moldy. But even regular flour falls into that category--that they owners are careful that water should not fall on it and let fungus grow in it.

My point here is that idea of Rav Nahman of Breslov that one should not search for extra restrictions-.The sources for this are the Le.M of Rav Nahman in vol ii chapter 4 and I think around chapter 86 and the famous hashmata [left out paragraph printed between vol i and vol ii] about the fact that if one wants to serve God, he must  think of himself as being alone in the world and not look at what other are doing.  

 The C.I.A. concentrates on regime  change since the 1990's. A prime example is Kosovo, where there was already tension. The C.I.A. hired  reckless hot heads to throw rocks at the police in Sarajevo thus got an over reaction from the police --which then caused an international outrage. Then  USA forces came in and got regime change. Same in Ukraine in 2014. And now they are doing the same thing in Israel.

Frege, G.E. Moore  Bertrand Russell, and Wittgenstein  were the main founders of the analytic school of philosophy which is the brand of philosophy taught in British and American universities, the unspoken principle of their approach is ''How can we disprove Kant? 

However, a careful analysis by Robert Hanna shows the flaws in their thinking. Thus, there is a need to get back to Kant. But which approach to Kant? Marburg (Hermann Cohen) Epistemology? Or the metaphysical Kant of the first half of the 1800's.

And besides that I would have to agree with Michael Huemer that the best of the Analytic School is G/E/ Moore.

But I think that the Friesian-Leonard Nelson approach to Kant is the best of them all 

Tractate Yevamot page 40, side B. Rambam laws of Yibum and Chalitza 6, halacha 18

 The sister of the chalutza [note 1] is forbidden. \Thus the zara of the sister of the chalutza is forbidden as a decree of the scribes. The reason is she might be mixed up with the zara of the chalutza. But the zara of the sister of the zkuka is not forbidden. Rav Shach brings this fact to show the zika is less than marriage derabanan.  However I do not see how that is so. Perhaps zika is marriage derabanan, but we do not make a decree on a decree. 

[note 1] When a brother has died without children, one of his wives must marry his brother or spit at him and take off his shoe. That is called chalitza. The woman that does  this is called chalutza 

Also I would like to ask this question on the answer of רב  שך on the רמב''ם. The question is this:  the רמב''ם writes this case. There are two brothers. Brother number one dies and so his wife falls to ייבום before brother number two. And after the first brother dies, a third brother is born. The wife of the first brother can never falls to ייבום before the third brother because of the law of ''the wife of one's brother whose was not in the same world.''  If the second brother made a מאמר on the wife of the first brother [that is he marries her by word, but has not yet slept with her,] then both the wife of the first and the other wife of the second brother are forbidden to the third brother. רב  שך askes: Why only מאמר? Should not זיקה alone be enough to forbid both wives to the third? He answers: since the second one died, that is as if there never was זיקה. [That is: רב  שך holds only when the brother is alive, then זיקה is like marriage. The question I have on this answer comes from יבמות ל' ע''ב and רמב''ם הלכות ייבום ו' כ''ה.The case is two brothers married to two sisters. One brother dies. Then a third brother dies and his wife falls to ייבום to the first brother. She can not have ייבום, but only חליצה because she had also זיקה with the second brother and this is צרת אחות of a זקוקה. This raises a question on the answer of רב  שך because the second brother is no longer alive, and so his זיקה should be nullified. But the answer to this seems simple since the זיקה still exists for the first brother so the answer of רב שך stands firm. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

אחותו של החלוצה [הערה 1] אסורה. לפיכך הצרה [הערה 2] של אחותו של החלוצה אסורה דרבנן. הסיבה היא שהיא עלולה להיות מעורבת עם צרה של החלוצה. אבל צרת אחות הזקוקה אינה אסורה [הערה ג]. רב שך מביא עובדה זו כדי להראות שזיקה [הערה 4] פחותה מנישואין דרבנן. עם זאת, איני רואה כיצד זה כך. אולי זיקה היא נישואין דרבנן, אבל אנחנו לא גוזרים גזרה על גזירה?

 

[הערה 1] כאשר אח נפטר ללא ילדים, על אחת מנשותיו לשאת את אחיו או לירוק אליו ולחלוץ את נעלו. זה נקרא החליצה. לאישה שעושה את זה קוראים חלוצה.

[הערה 2] הצרה היא האישה השנייה.

[הערה 3] המקרה הוא שאחותו של הזקוקה נשואה לאח אחר. לא זה שמת, ולא זה שעושה את הייבום או החליצה. למה שאותו אח שלישי לא יהיה חייב? אולי בגלל שהוא אח שנולד אחרי שהאח הראשון מת [הערה 4] זיקה היא החובה להתחתן עם אחת מנשות האח המת. זה כמו נישואים דרבנן. אבל במקרה אחד הרמב''ם רואה בזה פחות כח מנישואין דרבנן. אז רב שך מחפש איזה הסבר לרמב''ם

​

כמו כן ברצוני לשאול שאלה זו על תשובת רב שך על הרמב''ם. השאלה היא כזו: הרמב''ם כותב את המקרה הזה. יש שני אחים. אח הראשון מת וכך אשתו נופלת לייבום לפני אח מספר שתיים. ואחרי שהאח הראשון מת, נולד אח שלישי. אשת האח הראשון לעולם לא תוכל ליפול לייבום לפני האח השלישי בגלל דין "אשת אחיו שלא הייתה בעולמו". אם האח השני עשה מאמר עם אשת האח הראשון. כלומר הוא מתחתן איתה במילה, אבל עדיין לא שכב איתה,] אז גם אשת הראשון וגם אשתו השנייה של האח השני אסורות לאח השלישי. רב שואל: למה רק מאמר? האם אין די בזיקה לבדה כדי לאסור את שתי הנשים על השלישי? הוא עונה: מאז שהשני מת, זה כאילו מעולם לא הייתה זיקה. [כלומר: רב שך מחזיק רק כשהאח חי, אז זיקה זה כמו נישואין. השאלה שיש לי על התשובה הזו מגיעה מיבמות ל' ע''ב ורמב''ם הלכות ייבום ו' כ''ה. המקרה הוא שני אחים נשואים לשתי אחיות. אח אחד מת. ואז אח שלישי מת ואשתו נופלת לאח הראשון. היא לא יכולה לקבל ייבום, אלא רק חליצה כי הייתה לה גם זיקה עם האח השני וזו צרת אחותה של זקוקה. זה מעלה שאלה על תשובת רב שך כי האח השני כבר אינו בין החיים, ולכן יש לבטל את הזיקה שלו

אבל התשובה לכך נראית פשוטה שכן הזיקה עדיין קיימת לאח הראשון ולכן תשובת רב שך עומדת איתן.

 Rav Nahman was very much against learning philosophy and that approach is very much like that of some mediaeval authorities (e.g. Ramban/Nachmanidess).  But this is clearly an argument among the Rishonim. So I have at least some opinion to depend on.

Thus I would like to bring Kant in support of faith. I mean that questions on faith often come up and the answers are not satisfying. To this I answer the when one ventures into the realm of dinge an sich, contradictions arise automatically. what are things in themselves? They are both things stripped of all characteristics supplied by human minds, and starting axioms of reason. and furthermore Kant adds that this applies not just to abstract reason but also to individuals and societies

I see great importance of this approach of Kant and in particular in the Kant Fries school of thought. but i do not share the distain for Hegel that seems to permeate all neo Kantian schools.

Hegel thought that by the dialectic, it is possible to get beyond the limitations of pure reason and empirical reasoning. He did not deny the problem of the ''thing in itself,'' but rather thought that this process, it is possible to get beyond it

I would like here to take an opportunity to recommend a particular modification of Kant by Jacob Fries and Leonard Nelson that I think is the best approach in Philosophy even though this also needs a bit of tweaking the variables because the absolute position of Newtonian space and time can not be the fundamental starting place of all possible human reasoning. While Leonard Nelson was right that you have to have starting axioms without which Reason can not start, but Newton's space and time are not them. rather you have to start with Maxwell's equations of electro magnetism and the speed of light being constant.     [If only nelson had realized this in time, the whole Friesian school might have fared better, --in particular Bernays saw right away that the Friesian school needed to deal with Einstein in a more constructive way. IF anyone has the time i highly recommend the phd thesis of dr kelly ross on the friesian approach.    

 Rav Nahman states the importance of true tzadikim [saints] but also brings u the problem of people that are famous for being great tzadikim but in fact are agents from the dark side, In one Torah lesson Rav Nahman calls these phony tzadikim  מפורסמים של שקר [famous frauds] and Rav Israel Odeser said ''If famous then a fraud''.

[That means that people that are famous a being holy and righteous you must know that they are frauds ]