Learning and reading is not always of benefit.

"Who knows what else is out there?" Sapolsky. [In terms of mind control parasites like Toxo-plasmosis.]

Lots of times in what one reads or hears there is some hidden unit of social information [meme] that changes dramatically how one thinks about the world he lives in and thus that changes how he acts.

Learning and reading is not always of benefit. Sometimes depending on what one reads. Learning can be really damaging.

This is brought in the Mishna [of R. Yehuda HaNasi] אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא: הקורא בספרים חיצוניים

"These are they who have no portion in the next world:.. One who reads "outside" books."

  According to the Rif and Rosh this means the exact opposite of what most people think it means.
People think it that if they read just Jewish religious books, that is OK.

  The Rif and Rosh say just the opposite. They explain"Outside books" means books that supposedly explain the Torah but not in the way the sages did. That means almost all religious books nowadays are "outside books," because they explain the Torah but not in the way the sages of the Mishna and Gemara did so.

I am only saying this because I take this personally very seriously. In the religious world, there is little that I consider kosher at all. The best is obviously the great Litvak yeshivas: Ponovitch, Brisk, Mir-but that does not stop the dark side from trying to gain entrance into these places.

I have no objection to learning wisdom from all sources. But that is not what most religious books are about.They are mainly abut finding some dark side doctrine that appeals to them and then presenting it as authentic Torah.

[Thus when it comes to Torah I am careful  in what I read. And most of the religious stuff out there I will not come within ten feet of.]

race is real.

I have thought for a long time that race is real. This might have come from my parents. I recall once going on a skiing vacation that the issue of race was brought up, and I heard my mother say some comment which indicated to me that she did not think that all races were the same. I forget the comment, but the idea was mainly that black people are not necessarily as talented as white people. I do not know why that was a surprise to me. Perhaps I was myself being indoctrinated by the public school system without my being aware of it.

If you do not have something nice to say--do not say anything.

I tried to impress upon myself the importance of not giving rebuke for a few years. I would repeat to myself the statement of Reb Nachman's  אע''פ שתוכחה היא דבר גדולה ומוטל על כל אדם להוכיח את חבירו כשרואה בו דבר שאינו הגון, אע''פ כן לאו כל אדם ראוי להוכיח

"Even though rebuke is a great thing and it is an obligation on every person to rebuke their friend when they see them acting in a way that is not proper, still not every person is fit to be able to give rebuke. As R. Akiva said "I would be surprised if there could be found even one person in this generation who is fit criticize..'"

The Shelah brings this up and the Gra also but in a different sense. There is a sense just saying what the proper thing is. This is brought up in the אבן שלמה which is  a small book of sayings of the Gra.

The whole issue starts with the fact that rebuke is in fact one of the 613 commandments to the Rambam (and I think also all of those who counted the mitzvot like the Smag and Semak.].

It is significant that Reb Nachman only said one Torah lesson in Uman and this statement of his is the beginning of that Torah lesson. It is obvious to me that he thought of this fact (not to rebuke) as being of prime importance--way beyond how it sounds to us. To me and probably to most people it just does not seem like a big deal. But clearly to him, this was the one and only principle he wanted his last days on earth to be about.

Fast learning

Fast reading I found helpful in terms of learning.--Especially for difficult subjects. The difficult thing is to find some middle ground between fast learning and in-depth learning. I also think that there is an emotional aspect to learning. That is that one needs an emotional commitment.

One place I was learning at divided the day into slow in depth learning in the morning and fast learning in the afternoon and I have long thought that that combination makes the most sense.
That was at the Mirrer Yeshiva in NY.

Before the Mir, I had been in Shar Yashuv and there Reb Freifeld, Rav Naphtali Yeager and Motti Freifeld all emphasized in depth learning.

[So the fact that there I would do the Gemara and each Tosphot about twice and then go on was way too fast for their taste. Still some time later, I have begun to see the wisdom of their approach. I am sure that if I had not been exposed to real in-depth learning when I was in my teen age years, that I would not have been able to pick it up later. So I can see why Litvak yeshivas do emphasize this kind of (in-depth) learning. But I also think it needs to be balanced with fast learning.]





I have known people that could learn fast and comprehend. Shimon Buso and others. But I think the benefit of fast learning is usually not visible right away.

Maimonides and his synthesis between Faith and Reason

I have not done enough work on Maimonides to say much. Some of the main points were already brought up by Dr Kelley Ross and Sunwell that he is an arch type Kant Friesian. That is with the source of knowledge of universals being from non intuitive immediate knowledge. My personal question at this point is how to deal with the differences between Hegel and Kant and where to place Maimonides in regard to their differences. But the Middle Ages opens up a whole new range of possibilities in this regard. What I mean is the differences between Aquinas and Scotus also invites thought in regard to Maimonides.What was he thinking in terms of Human Freedom? Was he more like Aquinas or Scotus? There are plenty of mysteries about Maimonides that still require thought.
The main things I find important about Maimonides are his synthesis between Faith and Reason [which was shared by most other great people during the Middle Ages]. But it is his particular approach which especially fascinates me. An approach that I am still puzzled by and also enthralled with.

Rosh haShanah page 15 side B. An answer for a question I asked on Tosphot

Background. An אתרוג is unlike other fruit. It stays on the tree after it is already ripe. Thus we do not know if to go by the time of לקיטה for מעשר or the time of חנטה.  For vegetables we go by the time of לקיטה. For fruit in general we go by the time of חנטה. But the אתרוג is a doubt.רבה says an אתרוג coming from the seventh to the eight year is obligated in laws of the seventh year, but not מעשר. From the sixth to the seventh year, it is not obligated in anything. אביי asked on this. In ראש השנה , תוספות suggests that רבה can answer אביי that he is going like רבן גמליאל. I asked on this in my notes, that would simply put the question of אביי on the end of the statement of רבה. The answer to my question is this. If רבה is holding like רבן גמליאל that means the אתרוג is obligated in laws of the seventh year. That is because it ripened in the seventh year. My question was that the same אתרוג ought to be obligated in מעשר because for מעשר ,רבן גמליאל goes by the time of חנטה.
The answer is simple. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? I mean to say that even though it is already the eight year, but because he had to make the אתרוגים free and available to the public, so they are still coming into his field to take the אתרוגים. And in that case there is no way he could be obligated in מעשר.


) ראש השנה ט''ו: אני רוצה להציג שאלה על תוספות. תוספות אומר רבה היה יכול לענות אביי ולומר שהוא הולך כמו רבן גמליאל. אני שואל שזה היה שם את השאלה של אביי בחזרה לסוף הדין של רבה. (1) רק כדי להציג את הרעיונות הבסיסיים כאן: רבן גמליאל אומר לאתרוג אנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה לערלה רבעי ושביעית וזמן לקיטה למעשר. רבי אליעזר אומר שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה לכל דבר. רבותינו באושא החליטו שאנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה לכל דבר. (2) רבה אמר אתרוג של שישית שנכנסה לשביעית אינו מחויב בביעור ולא במעשר. אתרוג של השנה השביעית שנכנסה לשמינית מחויב בביעור אבל לא במעשר. (3) אביי שאל, הסיפא של רבה הוא בסדר כי הוא רוצה להחמיר, אבל מה לגבי הרישא? זה בסדר שהוא פטור מביעור משום שאנחנו הולכים לפי זמן חנטה, אבל מה לגבי מעשר? אם הולכים לפי חנטה, אז הוא צריך להיות מחויב במעשר. (4) רבה ענה: כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שהוא יהיה מחויב במעשר? כמו חולית של ים לגבי אבדה. (5) תוספות אומרים שיש לרבה יכולת לענות שהוא הולך כרבן גמליאל. (6) השאלה שלי היא שזה היה זורק את השאלה של אביי בחזרה על הסיפא במקום הרישא.




רקע כללי. אתרוג הוא בניגוד לפירות אחרים בזה שהוא נשאר על העץ אחרי שהוא כבר התבשל. לכן אנחנו לא יודעים אם ללכת לפי הזמן של לקיטה עבור מעשר או הזמן של חנטה. עבור ירקות הולכים לפי הזמן של לקיטה. עבור פירות  אנחנו הולכים לפי הזמן של חנטה. אבל האתרוג הוא ספק. רבה אומר אתרוג שמגיע משישית לשנה השביעית אינו מחויב בכל דבר.  משביעית לשנה השמינית מחויב בחוקים של השנה השביעית אבל לא במעשר. אביי שאל על זה.  תוספות עולה כי רבה יכול לענות לאביי שהוא הולך כמו רבן גמליאל. שאלתי על זה שזה יעמיד את השאלה של אביי על סוף לדוח של רבה. התשובה לשאלה שלי היא זו. אם רבה מחזיק כמו רבן גמליאל, אז האתרוג מחויב בחוקים של השנה השביעית. זאת משום שהוא התבשל בשנה השביעית. השאלה שלי היא שאותו אתרוג צריך להיות מחויב במעשר משום שבמעשר רבן גמליאל הולך לפי הזמן של לקיטה. התשובה היא פשוטה. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? אני מתכוון לומר כי למרות שהוא כבר  שנה השמינית , אלא בגלל שהוא היה צריך לעשות את אתרוגים זמינים לציבור, ולכן הם עדיין באים לתוך שדהו לקחת את האתרוגים. ואם כך, אין דרך שהוא יכול להיות מחויב במעשר



This answer occurred to me  today as I was looking over my notes on the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah

This is clearly what Tosphot was trying to say, but for some reason I did not understand Tosphot until today.

Rosh Hashanah page 15

Background. Rosh Hashanah page 15


Raba says an Etrog coming from the seventh to the eight year is obligated in laws of the seventh year but not maasar. From the sixth to the seventh year it is not obligated in anything. Abyee asked on this.



In Rosh Hashanah, Tosphot suggests that Raba can answer Abyee that he is going like Raban Gamliel.

I asked on this in my notes that would simply put the question of Abyee on the end of the statement of Raba.
The answer to my question is this.
If Raba is holding like Raban Gamliel that means the Etrog is obligated in laws on the seventh year.That is because it ripened in the seventh year. My question was that the same Etrog ought to be obligated in masaar (tithes) because for maasar (tithes) Raban Gamliel goes by the time of picking.
The answer is simple. כולם נכנסים לשדה שלו ואתה רוצה שיהיה חייב במעשר? [People are coming into us field to take fruit, and you want him to be obligated  to give tithes?!] That is: the same answer Raba gave, he could also have given if he was going like Raban Gamliel. Just the time period is different. The way Tosphot is understanding things is that even if people are coming into his field in the eight year just to get the etrogim, that also is enough to make him not obligated in tithes for the etrogim. It is kind of a subtle point that Tosphot is making.

I mean to say that even though it is already the eight years but because he had to make the etrogim available to the public so they are still coming into his field to take the etrogim. And in that case there is not way he could be obligated in Maasar.