Since the death of my son Izhak, I have accepted on myself to be doing four sessions in learning in my hope that they will go for his credit in Gan Eden where I hope and pray he is. But my original idea of doing lot of review does not seem to work in the sessions in math and physics. [I started this because Izhak held strongly of the idea of learning in depth (limud beiyun)]. For me it seems to work better to go one chapter forward, and then review to the beginning. Then one more chapter forward, and then again review to the very beginning. The only areas where review on that same chapter or section  works for me is in Tosphot or Rav Chaim of Brisk or the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.

Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the book of Numbers, seeing blood means a woman can not sleep with her husband for 7 days.

[Introduction- the law as you can read in the Bible is that seeing blood means a woman can not sleep with her husband for 7 days. Leviticus 18 and 20 and in the book of Numbers. On the night after the7th day she dips into a river. But the custom became that all women think of themselves as  a woman who sees blood for more than 7 days. If that would be in fact the case, then she would need 7 clean days, and then go to a river. What I am suggesting  is that women ought to get back to the law of the Torah--that is that 7 days is enough. That means whether she sees one day or 2 or three or even 7 full days, she still goes to the sea or river on the night after the 7th day and that is that.]  

Seven days of nida seems to me to be enough. A woman  sees blood one day or two  or even seven straight days, that should count for the seven days of nida. She dips in a river after the 7th day at night and that is enough.   Ziva is just not prevalent [seeing blood for eight days or more], and even a straight prohibition from the words of the scribes does not apply unless the reason it was made is common place.--much less a custom that few people keep anymore. It is not that I am looking to be lenient. There are thing I think people should be strict in like going into a river or sea. The "mikve" nowadays is a solid block of concrete and thus a "vessel" and therefore not kosher. [I.e. it can be lifted out of the ground in one piece.]

reason and faith

Reason and faith, In the Middle Ages, "reason" meant Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and a few Muslim Philosophers. After the Renaissance, Reason  meant more than study of Aristotle. But what? Two approaches began. The Enlightenment  and the Anti Enlightenment [Gulliver's travels at Laputa],\

 So I have done a bit of sifting out what I think is not so great. In STEM fields I have no argument except my wish that pseudo sciences [like psychology] would be weeded out, In Philosophy, I go with Kant and in particular that school of thought of Leonard Nelson that is a sort of modification on Kant. [But I am not so dismissive  of Hegel.]

[ I am no expert, but I can point out that John Searle said about 20th century philosophy "It is obviously false"] [He was clearly referring to existentialism  and the Frankfurt neo Marxists, If one wishes to invest the time to go into this he or he might look at the lectures of James Lindsay]

the statement of the Gra that, "To the degree that one lacks any knowledge of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more."

In the path of the Gra it is not clear what education ought to include. In the introduction to Euclid  in Hebrew by Baruch of Sckolev [disciple of the Gra] is brought the statement of the Gra that, "To the degree that one lacks any knowledge of the seven wisdoms, to that degree he will lack in understanding of Torah a hundred fold more." But in the Middle Ages "the seven wisdoms" meant the Quadrivium and Trivium [grammar, logic, and rhetoric, while the quadrivium consists of arithmetic, astronomy, music, and geometry],  Rhetoric is the subject of attack in Plato's Georgias and the Ion. Georgias was a famous sophist that prided himself (like  all the sophists] of being able to convince people of anything even falsehoods. Socrates does not like that. The Gra certainly would not hold by learning that. Rather this seems to refers to the 6 books of Aristotle, the Organon. During the Middle Ages, many Rishonim held one ought to have a secular education  which would mean what today would be known as STEM fields, Science, Tech, Engineering, Mathematics.[But this would not include pseudo science like psychology]

[In the world of Litvak yeshivot, yeshiva was only for seven years==that is to go through the even basic tractates--one per year. [Three bavot: Bava Kama Bava Metzia Bava Batra and 4 Nashim: gitin kidushin yevamot Ketuboth.] 

tendency to add restrictions

 There is a kind of tendency in the religious world to add tons of restrictions that the Torah does not require and to ignore plenty of prohibitions that the Torah forbids. This, of course, is against the verse in Deuteronomy chap. 4 verse 2 that commands us not to add nor subtract from the commandments. And it is also against the approach of the Gra and the general Litvak world. However,  this tendency has seeped in the Litvak world today. And while I was   in the Mir in NY, I barely noticed this tendency because at that time I was interested in following the stricter opinion about any question in halacha--law.  But after some time, I began to notice this. Of course, there is nothing wrong with taking the strict opinion about any particular law. But the problem is that lots of restrictions are made up out ''of whole cloth'' [as the expression goes].

 Philosophers (whether in academia or outside) seem determined to disagree with each other even when their positions are close. Michael Huemer basing himself on the Intuitionalists like Prichard see that reason recognizes universals. Is that  all that far away from the Friesian school of Leonard Nelson and Kelley Ross where first principles are known but not by reason or the senses? They are reasonable (not infallible). Greta Hermann thought that Nelson meant "infallible" and thus went away from the immediate non intuitive approach(-and it might be that in fact that is what Nelson thought). But that its not implied by the Friesian doctrine as Kelley Ross point out.

And while I am at it, is this all that far from Hegel who reaches absolute knowledge by a dialectical process. [This may not be obvious to people unless, you read the Logic of Hegel that was part of his Encyclopedia.]

I mean where would Physics be today if Einstein had decided to attack the concept of the quantum? Or even more striking is that in Quantum Mechanics every incremental step was done by a different person building on the result of some previous person.][not attacking previous results]

[i might mention here that all of this is post Kant and all these people did not ignore Kant but rather tried to deal with the difficulties he raised. Huemer is from  the Analytic tradition starting with Frege. Nelson and Fries is a modification of Kant. Hegel is sort of his own category  but still does try to answer the problem raised by Kant. 

furthermore i must mention that at least a significant number of Rishonim did not ignore philosophy not Plato nor Aristotle or Plotinus nor the later Muslim Philosophers and so I think the great Post Kant Thinkers are important--but not all. After all I do agree that most post Kant philosophy is worthless--but I do know that to see the flaws takes a certain amount of experience and expertise.

Bava Batra page 35a in Tosfot and page 70a. Rambam chapter 4 halacha 14.

An introduction to the subject, A person grabbed a piece of metal from someone and a witness says so. And the person says, "Yes I took it because it is mine". R. Aba said he can not take an oath because he is not disagreeing with the witness, and so he must give back the piece. Tosphot asks why is this different from a case where one is a guard of an object with a  document, and there he  is believed with an oath   because he could have said it was stolen. Here too let him be believed because he could have said ''I did not take it'' and be believed with an oath.  

 In the subject of the bar of metal of R. Aba, Rav Shach suggests the reason the person that grabbed it is not believed because the oath that he would like to take is not the oath of a guard where the Torah believes an a oath. That means to say that there are claims that a person is not believed even with an oath. In certain cases the Torah believes an oath, but this is not one of them. This is different from the case in Bava Batra page 70a where  person is a guard of an object with a document. [The person that gave him the object to guard has a document to that effect.] There the guard is believed that he gave back the object because he has a migo that he could have said the object was stolen and be believed with an oath, Rav Shach explains  that the case of, "I gave it back to you " is a case where the  guard is in fact is saying that the object was stolen because now that the  owner is saying he never got back the object that is a case where the owner is trying to steal the object. Two questions. One is that if so, then the fact that the guard is saying "I gave it back" is a case of it being stolen, and that case in itself is a plea that the Torah believes with an oath. The Torah is not believing him because of a migo, but because that in itself is a plea that the Torah believes with an oath (and yet the gemaras says the guard is believed because of a migo that he could have said it was neenas) The other question is that if Rav Shach is right then the owner is trying to steal the amount of money the object is worth, not the actual object. That would seem to depend if "the the value of money is like money" which we only say in certain cases like kidushin or the amount of money that a Hebrew slave can be redeemed with.

I am being short here because there a a few answers to this question of Tospfot in Bava Batra 35a. Rav Shach is mainly coming to answer this question in the Rambam because other answers do not seem to work so well in the Rambam.   

__________________________________________________________________________

 In the subject of the bar of metal נסכא of ר' אבא, Here רב שך suggests the reason the person that grabbed it is not believed because the oath that he would like to take is not the oath of a guard where the תורה believes an a oath. That means to say that there are claims that a person is not believed even with an oath. In certain cases the Torah believes an oath, but this is not one of them. This is different from the case in בבא בתרא ע' ע''א where  person is a guard of an object with a document. [The person that gave him the object to guard has a document to that effect.] There the guard is believed that he gave back the object because he has a מיגו that he could have said the object was נגנב and be believed with an oath,  רב שך explains  that the case of "I gave it back to you " is a case where the  guard  is saying that the object was stolen because now that the  owner is saying he never got back the object that is a case where the owner is trying to steal the object. Two questions. One is that if so, then the fact that the guard is saying "I gave it back" is a case of it being stolen, And that case in itself is a plea that the תורה believes with an oath. The תורה is not believing him because of a מיגו, but because that in itself is a plea that the תורה believes with an oath (and yet the גמרא says the guard is believed because of a מיגו that he could have said it was נאנס). The other question is that if  רב שך is right, then the owner is trying to גונב the amount of money the object is worth, not the actual object. That would seem to depend if "the the value of money is like money" שווה כסף ככסף which we only say in certain cases like קיושין or the amount of money that a עב עברי can be redeemed with.

I am being short here because there a a few answers to this question of תוספות in בבא בתרא ל''ה ע''אa. Here רב שך is mainly coming to answer this question in the רמב''ם because other answers do not seem to work so well in the רמב''ם.   

An introduction to the subject, A person grabbed a piece of metal from someone and a witness says so. And the person says, "Yes I took it because it is mine". ר' אבא said he can not take an oath because he is not disagreeing with the witness and o he must give back the piece. תוספות asks why is this different from a case where one is a guard of an object with a  document and there he  is believed with an oath   because he could have said it was stolen.

בנושא  נסכא של ר' אבא, כאן רב שך מציע את הסיבה לכך שהאדם שתפס אותו אינו נאמן כי השבועה שהוא רוצה להישבע אינה שבועת שומר במקום שבו התורה מאמין שְׁבוּעָה. כלומר שיש טענות שלא מאמינים לאדם אפילו בשבועה. במקרים מסוימים התורה מאמינה בשבועה, אך זו אינה אחת מהן. זה שונה מהמקרה בבא בתרא ע' ע''א שאדם הוא שומר על חפץ עם מסמך. [לאדם שנתן לו את החפץ לשמירה יש מסמך על כך.] שם השומר נאמן שהוא החזיר את החפץ כי יש לו מיגו שיכול היה לומר שהחפץ נגנב ולהאמין עם שבועה, רב שך מסביר שהמקרה של "החזרתי לך" הוא מקרה שבו השומר אומר שהחפץ נגנב כי עכשיו כשהבעלים אומר שהוא לא החזיר את החפץ זה מקרה שבו הבעלים מנסה לגנוב את החפץ. שתי שאלות. האחת היא שאם כן, אז העובדה שהשומר אומר "החזרתי" היא מקרה של גניבה, והמקרה הזה כשלעצמו הוא טענה שהתורה מאמינה בשבועה. התורה לא מאמינה לו בגלל מיגו, אלא בגלל שזו כשלעצמה זו טענה שהתורה מאמינה בשבועה (ואף על פי כן הגמרא אומרת שהשומר מאמינים בגלל מיגו שיכול היה לומר שזה נאנס). השאלה הנוספת היא שאם רב שך צודק, אז הבעלים מנסה לגנוב את סכום הכסף ששווה החפץ, לא החפץ בפועל. נראה שזה תלוי אם "ערך הכסף הוא כמו כסף", שם שווה כסף ככסף אנו אומרים רק במקרים מסוימים כמו קידושין או כמות הכסף שאיתו ניתן לפדות עבד עברי. אני מקצר כאן כי יש כמה תשובות לשאלה זו של תוספות בבבא בתרא ל''ה ע''א. כאן רב שך בא בעיקר לענות על שאלה זו ברמב''ם כי נראה שתשובות אחרות לא כל כך עובדות ברמב''ם

הקדמה לנושא, אדם תפס חתיכת מתכת ממישהו ועד אומר כך. והאדם אומר, "כן לקחתי את זה כי זה שלי". ר' אבא אמר שאינו יכול להישבע כי אינו חולק על העד ועליו להחזיר את החתיכה. תוספות שואלים למה זה שונה ממקרה שבו שומר על חפץ עם מסמך ושם מאמינים לו בשבועה כי יכול היה לומר שהוא נגנב.